Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Royal Free NHS Trust

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received about the work of the Royal Free NHS trust.

The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): We have received many favourable comments about the quality of patient care at the Royal Free NHS trust.

Mr. Marshall: Has my hon. Friend seen the annual report of the Royal Free trust which serves many of my constituents and which can boast of a 9 per cent. increase in the number of in-patients treated, a substantial reduction in waiting lists and additional facilities for the mentally ill, victims of AIDS and the elderly? Is that not a record of which the Government and the trust can be justly proud?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he will see that I, too, have a copy of the annual report which was issued this week. He will be pleased to know that I visited the Royal Free only yesterday and was able to learn at first hand of some of its successes as a trust. I endorse everything that my hon. Friend said, except that I would reverse the order—it is something of which the trust can rightly be proud and the Government also.

Ms. Glenda Jackson: Is the Minister aware that his previous reply will ring somewhat hollowly in the ears of my constituents in Hampstead and Highgate in the light of the news announced 10 days ago that operations at the Royal Free will have to be postponed due to the lack of funds from its central purchasing authority because of the news that the Royal Free will have to trim its budget by between 3 and 5 per cent., amounting to £4 million next year, which will mean that 16 beds will be lost to the national health service for ever? Far from solving a problem, trust status is creating a crisis.

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Lady's point is far from the truth. I am pleased to be able to tell her that those responsible for the trust were yesterday in much more robust form and were looking forward with far greater enthusiasm to the success that they will continue to achieve, building on what they have already achieved. The hon. Lady's constituents will be pleased that activity at the Royal Free last year increased by 10 per cent.

Mr. McCartney: Why does not the Minister of State tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about that particular trust? It has a hospital maintenance backlog of more than £18 million, two thirds of its staff accommodation fails statutory standards and it has legionella problems in the air-conditioning system, which have not been solved because of a lack of resources. By December, the trust will close at least three wards because of expenditure cuts in this year's budget, nurses are to be forced to work a 12-hour shift instead of an eight-hour shift because of the cuts, and vacancies will not be filled because of problems in the current budget cycle. In 1993–94 there is to be a 3 to 5 per cent. cut in the budget. That is a story not of success but of serious problems in the trust. The Minister should rethink and suggest real reasons why the trust is to be underfunded by £4 million next year.

Dr. Mawhinney: I do not recognise the Royal Free trust from the information that the hon. Gentleman tried to give the House——

Mr. Skinner: And he never took a breath.

Dr. Mawhinney: It was a great performance.
The Royal Free trust has managed to increase facilities for the elderly, including a new ward. It has increased facilities for the mentally ill and the elderly and introduced new facilities for those suffering from HIV and AIDS. It is treating more patients than ever before and plans to treat even more next year. If that is the hon. Gentleman's definition of failure, I hope that many more NHS hospitals are failures by his standards.

Community Care

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the latest progress towards the implementation of the Government's proposals for community care.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): Good progress is being made by most local authorities in implementing the new arrangements. Where there are difficulties, we are offering help in a variety of ways, including our community care support force.

Mr. Nicholson: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a general welcome from all parties for the ring fencing of the substantial grant given for the implementation of care in the community. He will also be aware that Somerset has been especially singled out by a recent Audit Commission report for making excellent progress, in collaboration with the health authority, in preparing to implement the proposals. However, is my hon. Friend also aware of a matter about which I am in correspondence with him and other right hon. and hon. Friends, which is that Somerset feels that it has lost about £1·3 million of grant for having followed Government guidelines in giving the private sector proper scope in the administration of care in the community? Do I have my hon. Friend's assurance that he and his colleagues will carefully examine that matter?

Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for ring fencing, which ensures that the very generous resources that the Government have provided for local authorities to deliver community care will reach their targets. My hon. Friend is a most vigorous champion of the interests of Somerset in all respects. I am, therefore,


aware of the particular difficulty to which he alludes. When Somerset county council entered into arrangements to ensure maximum participation by the independent sector in Somerset, it was aware of the likely arrangements for funding the new policy from next April. I shall continue to look into the matter most carefully.

Ms. Jowell: Will the Minister confirm the guidance given by civil servants last week to health service managers that trusts are to be regarded by local authorities as part of the independent sector in purchasing community care? Will he make it clear to the House that he agrees that care for many elderly people will not now be free at the point of use and that their health care has been privatised by stealth?

Mr. Yeo: There is absolutely no question of privatising the health care of any person, whether elderly or otherwise. As the hon. Lady really should know, a distinction has always been drawn between health care needs, which are met free of charge at the point of delivery to patients, and social care needs, for which we have never guaranteed that services would be delivered free. It is proper that all local authorities should make a charge for social services to those families who can afford to pay for them.
I gladly confirm that, as part of our general programme of maximising participation by the independent sector and of giving all local authorities the best opportunity to meet the requirement that 85 per cent. of the transfer funds must be spent in the independent sector, NHS trusts will qualify as being part of the independent sector because they are not controlled, managed or owned by local authorities.

Dame Jill Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Children Act 1989 laid on social services departments the duty to take care of and to watch over children aged 16 who have left care? Is he aware that that is not being done and that children of 16 are not capable of managing by themselves? Will he look into that problem?

Mr. Yeo: I am aware that, in terms of implementing the provisions of the Children Act—which require local authorities to prepare all children, from the day they enter care, for the moment when they leave care, and to befriend children up to the age of 21 after they have left care—and in terms of the powers they have to help children where necessary not only with cash payments, but with advice and general counselling, there has been some variation in the performance of local authorities in the year since the Act came into force.
We are studying the matter and we have a research programme at Leeds university. We are also carrying out a careful survey of all local authorities to see exactly how they are implementing the Act. We shall study the information submitted to us and we shall include it in the report that we make to Parliament in the new year, as required by the Act.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Has the Minister fully considered the implications of requiring a set quota of next year's community care funding to be spent in the independent sector, bearing in mind that independent sector domiciliary care is non-existent in many areas and that local authority domiciliary care faces cuts in 87 per cent. of councils, according to the directors of social services? Are

we not in danger of seeing more rather than fewer elderly and disabled people ending up in unnecessary private institutional care?

Mr. Yeo: Absolutely not. I very much regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman continues to adhere to his party's traditional hostility towards the private sector in any form. What the policy will deliver, by replacing the awful alternative of a local authority monopoly in the provision of all social services, is higher standards and better value for money. Local authorities will have to contract with private and voluntary organisations, not only for the provision of residential or nursing home care but for domiciliary and day care services. We have an initiative in hand that is designed to encourage local authorities to work with the independent sector to develop innovative methods of delivering domiciliary care.

Hip Replacement Operations

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hip replacement operations were carried out (a) in 1979 and (b) in 1991.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): The number of hip replacements climbed from 28,788 in 1979 to 44,477 in 1990–91, an increase of 54 per cent.

Mr. Knapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that those excellent figures are testimony to the improvements in the national health service over the past decade? Will he comment on the citizens charter where it is suggested that no one should wait more than 18 months for a hip replacement operation?

Mr. Sackville: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that a target of 18 months has been set and that regional health authorities tell us that they are on target to meet that by April next year. I certainly agree that the operation is wonderful and that it has improved the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of people over the past 20 years.

Ms. Abbott: Is the Minister aware that if he and his colleagues go ahead with the closure of London hospitals outlined in the Tomlinson report, waiting lists in inner London for elective surgery such as hip replacements are bound to grow? Is he aware also that the statistics quoted by the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box about an excess of beds in London have proved to be unfounded? In the context of the Tomlinson report, is he further aware that London's general practitioners have come out unanimously against the closure of those great teaching hospitals?

Mr. Sackville: I can only tell the hon. Lady that the evidence of the increase in efficiency with which hip operations are carried out all over the country is there for everyone to see. The number of orthopaedic surgeons has increased and the number of staff specialising in orthopaedics has increased from 2,000 to 2,400. It is a success story.

Mr. Lidington: Will my hon. Friend congratulate the orthopaedic teams at Stoke Mandeville hospital in my constituency on the increased treatment that they are providing for patients in my area? Will he also assure the House and my constituents that when the £20 million capital programme proposed for Stoke Mandeville reaches


his Department, it will be treated sympathetically and with speed so that top-quality NHS treatment can be assured for my constituents?

Mr. Sackville: I can confirm that. The temporary problems have been matched by a very sharp increase in activity at the hospital over the past year, including in orthopaedics.

NHS Staff (Pay)

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of the pay review bodies dealing with the pay of NHS staff.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The remits for the review bodies have been amended for next year. Pay restraint will help us to improve services to patients. The review bodies have been asked to resume their full role for 1994–95.

Mrs. Kennedy: Does the Secretary of State accept that that answer will be a great disappointment for those members of staff whose pay is subject to the decisions of a pay review body? The House will recall that in 1984 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed a 3 per cent. pay limit on the public sector. Notwithstanding that pay limit, the nurses' pay review body recommended a 5 per cent. pay increase. The Government recognised the special case made for nurses and awarded that pay increase. Will the Secretary of State reassure the staff who are concerned about the matter that she will honour and respect the independence of the pay review bodies, fully restore their independence and allow them to make recommendations next year, based on the circumstances of the staff whom they look after?

Mrs. Bottomley: The review bodies will have a continuing role. This Government introduced the review bodies for nurses and for doctors. Nurses had little to look for from the Labour party which was dominated by members of the National Union of Public Employees like the hon. Lady. When Labour was in power, nurses saw their pay cut by 3 per cent. in real terms. Their pay has been increased by 52 per cent. since this Government have been in power.

Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to all the regional health authority chairmen and district and family health services authority chairmen in some areas who have volunteered for a pay freeze next year? Does she agree that that sacrifice to help patients should be warmly applauded?

Mrs. Bottomley: I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying a warm tribute to all of those regional chairmen who have agreed to take no increase in pay next year and the growing number of regional chairmen who have told me that their district health authority chairmen and FHSA chairmen have agreed that, as an act of leadership, they will take no increase in pay. Sir Donald Wilson, the chairman of Mersey regional health authority, is one such chairman who has made an act of commitment on his part and on the part of his chairmen.

Mr. Wigley: Notwithstanding the pay restraint which the Government regrettably find necessary to impose, can the Secretary of State give an absolute assurance that such

restraints will not preclude the Government from meeting any recommendations for the dental service to get the service out of the total chaos in which it finds itself?

Mrs. Bottomley: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, this year the dentists received an increase of 8·5 per cent. from the review body. In addition, the system has overpaid an average of £5,000 a head. The review body was also able to agree an increase in expenses of 11 per cent.
A review of dental remuneration is under way. We will consider that review carefully once it has been published. At the same time, the 1·5 per cent. overall envelope applies to dental practitioners as well as to others this year. It will be for the dental rate study group to decide how to translate that 1·5 per cent. into fees.

"The Health of the Nation"

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the regional health authorities in taking forward the strategy outlined in "The Health of the Nation".

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The NHS is making excellent progress. Managers and professionals in hospitals, health authorities and primary health care teams are working together to achieve health improvement in the key areas and other local priority areas.
The NHS is setting the pace for other organisations to follow.

Mr. Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Mid-Staffordshire group of hospitals on getting trust status? Will she confirm that being a trust means that no one in my constituency who goes to that group of hospitals will need to enter a building that is more than 10 years old? How does she intend to expand the scheme so that other parts of the country may enjoy trust status hospital treatment?

Mrs. Bottomley: I certainly congratulate my hon. Friend. Like many other Members of Parliament, he, on behalf of his constituents, is seeing the benefits that trusts can bring. I am pleased to tell him that today I have accepted a further 121 expressions of interest in the fourth wave of NHS trusts. If all those applications are successful, 95 per cent. of hospital and community health service provision will be in the hands of trusts. That is good for the NHS and for the health of the nation.

Ms. Lynne: Will the Secretary of State explain how the guidelines laid out in "The Health of the Nation" White Paper relating to mental health patients can be seen to be implemented when people such as Dr. Loucas, who was the subject of a "Cutting Edge" documentary on Channel 4 last night, are still allowed to practise? Despite repeated warnings from the Mental Health Act Commissioner about his activities, he still practises. Will she give an assurance that there will be a full inquiry and that the results of that inquiry will be made public?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady asked about the guidelines in the White Paper on mental health. Last year, 71 million working days were lost as a result of mental health problems. That is 14 per cent. of sickness absence,


and it accounts for 23 per cent. of the drug budget. The problems of mental illness that the nation faces are very serious and are certainly a priority.
In relation to the case raised by the hon. Lady, the Mental Health Act Commission made it clear that progress had been made at the special hospital. As to the further allegations about Riverside health authority, further investigations and assurances are on their way.

Mr. Sims: The successful implementation of the proposals laid out in "The Health of the Nation" involve not only my right hon. Friend's Department but a number of other Government Departments. What mechanism exists to ensure co-ordination between Government Departments? To what extent is that co-ordination reflected at regional and health authority level?

Mrs. Bottomley: I assure my hon. Friend that there is a Cabinet Committee, under the chairmanship of the Lord President of the Council, which oversees progress in meeting the targets in "The Health of the Nation". That committee met last week, and further progress was made. At regional level, there is a particular officer to take progress forward, and it is subject to the management review.
There will be a series of regional conferences in the new year to ensure that all parties to a healthy alliance are able to contribute. Only by different agencies working together will we achieve the real improvements in health that underlie our health strategy.

Mr. Blunkett: Will the Secretary of State accept that her answer this afternoon about the revelations made by The Independent and the Channel 4 "Cutting Edge" programme about Dr. Kypros Loucas shows that the Department is unwilling to act on a series of recommendations made by, first, the Mental Health Act Commission and, secondly, interested parties who have expressed grave concerns to the Department and Ministers about the activities of Dr. Loucas not merely at Broadmoor but at Horton general hospital and subsequently as an employee, at present at Wormwood Scrubs? Is the Secretary of State telling the House this afternoon that hormone experiments of a kind practised by Dr. Mengele, the application of electro-convulsive therapy without anaesthetic and the overdosing of patients' drugs are practices which her Department is willing to countenance? In what way does the right hon. Lady recommend that the powerless in our society protect themselves from the powerful in high places?

Mrs. Bottomley: I have already informed the House that the Mental Health Act Commission commented on the position at Broadmoor in 1989; at that stage, it said that progress had been made in the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That was the year in which the doctor involved left Broadmoor. We are carrying out further investigations with Riverside health authority into the subsequent events at Horton general hospital. We have also drawn the attention of the General Medical Council to the programme.

Fund-holding Practices

Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to meet representatives of the National Association of Fundholding Practices to review their progress.

Mrs. Bottomley: I met representatives of the National Association of Fundholding Practices on 18 November when we discussed the significant benefits that fund holding is bringing to patients. I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that I shall also address the second annual conference of the National Association of Fundholding Practices tomorrow.

Mr. Booth: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the success of the fund-holding practices and in particular the way in which they have played their part in reducing waiting lists throughout the nation? Will she welcome the way in which we have brought down waiting lists since 1979?

Mrs. Bottomley: I certainly warmly commend the fund-holding practices and the national health service generally for the progress that they have made in reducing waiting lists. The Labour party said that we would never meet the targets for waiting lists, just as it said that we would never meet the targets on immunisation or cancer screening. We have met all those targets and, indeed, beaten them. But the contribution of fund-holding practices goes much wider than tackling waiting lists; it concerns the quality of care, the integration of primary and secondary care and the dramatic progress in bringing down the cost of drugs.

Mr. Burden: Given what the Secretary of State has said, what advice would she give to my constituent, Mr. Kitching, whose general practitioner referred him for an appointment because he might require surgery to his knee, in which he had arthritis? He was told in January this year that the waiting list for an appointment was about 91 weeks. Last month, he received a further letter telling him that he might have to wait another 13 weeks. Would the Secretary of State say to Mr. Kitching that that is an appropriate or reasonable time to wait? If she would, why is she also considering shutting the royal orthopaedic hospital in Birmingham, which could provide Mr. Kitching with the treatment that he needs?

Mrs. Bottomley: All are agreed that there is more for the national health service to do. All are agreed, I hope, that remarkable progress has been made in reducing long waiting times. We hope to set an out-patient target under the patients charter initiative. However, it is not by avoiding difficult decisions that further progress for patients is made. It is certainly the case that GP fund holders have pioneered innovative treatments and care of their patients which others have been able to follow.

Mr. Rathbone: Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance on the way in which fund holders have improved the services that they offer to patients—rather than having to send them to hospital, for example—in analyses for diabetes or cholesterol?

Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed, there are numerous practical examples of the ways in which fund holders have developed new services, either by inviting consultants to undertake out-patient work at their practices—by way of a treat and teach model—by pioneering different ways to deal with diagnostic assessments, or by the organisation of a contract with the local hospital, which other general practitioners have followed. The point is that GP fund


holders have been able to push forward the frontiers and to demonstrate new models of practice, which can then be spread widely within the NHS.

Ms. Primarolo: When the Secretary of State speaks to the National Association of Fundholding Practices tomorrow will she make it clear that the House is appalled at the massive profits that GP fund holders are making out of the national health service? We consider it scandalous that practices can make £190,000 or £280,000 in profit from fund holding when cash-starved hospitals are freezing waiting lists. Will she ensure that that money is returned in full to the district health authorities, so that it can be spent on patient care, especially the care of those on long waiting lists?

Mrs. Bottomley: Yes, we see the two-facedness of the Opposition. They profess to believe in primary care, but when we find a way to mobilise it so that GPs can act on behalf of their patients, they say that they dislike it. I suspect that at the next election the Leader of the Opposition will say that fund holding is another policy with which he agreed, but that he did not think that he could face up to telling his party that he supported it. Fund holders are saving 4 per cent. in their fund-holding work. The point is that that money can be invested in the practice, to make further improvements in primary care.

Mr. Dunn: Is the Secretary of State aware that two practices in my constituency are now fund holding—at Longfield and at Dartford East—and that they are both working extremely well, to the benefit of patient care? Is she also aware that my Labour opponent at the last election is a general practitioner in a practice in Bexleyheath, which is in the fourth wave of applications for fund-holding status?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am delighted to hear that information from my hon. Friend. I very much hope that in spite of the mischievous and often wilfully misleading comments of the Opposition, sensible GPs who put their patients' interests first will see the advantages of fund holding for themselves and for the progress that it can encourage throughout the NHS.

Elderly Population

Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates she has made of the impact of the growing elderly population on health expenditure; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Yeo: It is estimated that slightly under 0·5 per cent. growth in resources will be required in the hospital and community health services next year to take account of all demographic changes. That is much less than the estimated increase of at least 2·5 per cent. in hospital and community health activity which we expect the national health service to achieve as a result of the £1 billion extra funding announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Milburn: Why has planned spending on the NHS been cut by 2·3 per cent. in real terms for next year, when the Minister acknowledges that the growth in the elderly population requires an increase of at least 0·5 per cent. simply to stand still? Is it not a fact that his failure to take account of the growth in the numbers of elderly people

when setting the health budget means that there will be real cuts in patient care next year? What is his message to my constituents, who face yet another year when health budgets will be squeezed as a result of his Department's failure to make available growth funding to my health authority in Darlington? When will the Government come clean about the real shortfall in NHS expenditure?

Mr. Yeo: I am sorry that after such a short time here the hon. Gentleman has succumbed to the Opposition obsession with inputs rather than outputs. The statistics of interest to elderly people are those that show what the health service is doing for them, such as the 54 per cent. rise since 1979 in the annual total of hip replacement or the 91 per cent. increase in the number of elderly people treated as in-patients.
But if the hon. Gentleman wants a battle about inputs, I remind him that spending on the health service has risen by 60 per cent. in real terms since 1979—upfrom 4·6 per cent. of gross domestic product to 5·7 per cent.—and that for the first time in British history, under the present Government, more taxpayers' money is being spent on health than on defence.

Mr. Dickens: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the elderly of today are most fortunate because they live under a national health service which has developed medical techniques unthought of years ago, with drugs beyond their wildest dreams being available? I look forward to immortality. I warn the Opposition of that.

Mr. Yeo: I am sure that, with the benefit of the NHS, my hon. Friend will achieve his goal of immortality. I agree with the points he makes, but there are others of importance too, not least the relevance of the patients charter to elderly people. That has now set maximum waiting times for hip replacements, knee replacements, cataracts and a whole range of other treatments which are of great relevance in delivering even higher quality health care to our elderly population.

Provider Units (Targets)

Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to improve performance in those provider units that are not reaching targets specified in the patients charter.

Mr. Sackville: Regional health authorities are accountable to the NHS management executive, through contracts, for their districts' performance and for taking aciton to ensure that problems are remedied. It is for health authorities, as purchasers, to ensure that providers' performance on patients charter activity meet the standards set in contracts. Authorities must, therefore, take action where performance falls below standard.

Mr. Gapes: Is the Minister aware that there are in my constituency people who have been waiting for 54 weeks at King George's hospital and 66 weeks at Barking hospital for orthopaedic operations, while others have been waiting for up to 35 weeks to see a female gynaecologist? Is he further aware that since the present Secretary of State took office, 130 additional people per day have been added to waiting lists and that in the North-East Thames region there has been an increase of 2·1 per cent. in the number


of people on the waiting list for up to one year and 3·9 per cent. in total? It is a disgrace that the Government should be doing nothing to reduce waiting lists.

Mr. Sackville: I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that activity on in-patients has gone up by 32 per cent. in recent years in Redbridge, that it has gone up by 15 per cent. for day cases and that there is a £58 million hospital development at Goodmayes, the largest in the whole of the North East Thames region.

Mr. Tredinnick: In connection with homoeopathy, given the importance and popularity of alternative and complementary medicine, does the Minister agree that it would be an important addition to the patients charter to set standards for health authorities to implement ways in which patients might obtain those benefits? Does he recall that his predecessor, the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said that the alternative disciplines could be paid for through the NHS if the necessary powers were delegated and responsibility was taken by GPs?

Mr. Sackville: Under our system, purchasers, whether health authorities or fund holders, have greater opportunity to decide on the treatment that they consider to be appropriate. I have no doubt that complementary medicine will be given all proper consideration.

Mr. Turner: How does the patients charter relate to dermatology patients at the Royal hospital, Wolverhampton, who had to occupy their ward last weekend to prevent it from being closed at weekends to save cash? How does that relate to the rights of patients?

Mr. Sackville: The hon. Gentleman knows that health authorities must monitor the standard set locally by providers. They will all be required to publish annually a report showing how those performance standards have been met.

Fund-holding Practices

Mr. Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress towards adoption by general practitioners of fund-holding status.

Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of how general practitioners' interest in the fund-holding initiative has changed since the scheme began.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am pleased to report growing interest and support for fund holding amongst GPs, who are realising the benefits that it brings patients. By April 1993, more than 1,000 practices will have joined the fund-holding schemes, covering one in four of the population.

Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in High Peak every GP practice eligible for fund-holding status has achieved it or applied for it? Is not that a clear demonstration that even if the Opposition fail to realise the benefits of fund-holding status, doctors who are most in touch with their patients' needs clearly do?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. It shows that GPs have been listening to their patients and probably also to their Member of Parliament.

Mr. Gill: Notwithstanding the massive amounts of additional money which the Government continue to pump into the national health service, does my hon. Friend agree that the efficiency savings made by GP fund holders are extremely valuable because they free resources so that more patients may be treated?

Dr. Mawhinney: Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are concerned that more patients should receive high-quality treatment from the record amount of resources made available. It is a matter of regret that others do not take the same view.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister assure the House that, in cutting down waiting lists, GP fund holders will not be able to get privileges for their patients by paying extra to NHS trusts and gaining access to hospitals? If he will not give that assurance, he stands convicted of establishing a two-tier system in the NHS, which is supposed to be a service open to all, free at the point of use. One tier will be for GP fund holders' patients and another will be for the rest.

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman knows, but will not accept, that clear rules have already been agreed with representatives of the medical profession. Those rules preclude a contract being set if it will disadvantage other patients. The hon. Gentleman has been told that before and he must simply accept it.

Mr. Bryan Davies: If and when GP fund holders overspend, who pays?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman asked me a similar question last time. He will recall that I told him that there was some imprecision in the early stages of setting GP fund holders' budgets. I told him that, in a few cases, GP fund holders had to go back to the region to have their base budgets adjusted in the light of experience. The reverse of that coin is also true. We are discussing with some GP fund holders the return of some of the money which they received from the similar imprecise setting of their budgets. He will be pleased to know that we are doing that with the full support of the National Association of Fundholding Practices.

North East Thames Region

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will announce a target date for the full implementation of capitation funding for the allocation of resources for the NHS districts within North East Thames health region.

Dr. Mawhinney: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will today be announcing revenue allocations for regional health authorities for 1993–94. They will include a real increase of 0·4 per cent. for North East Thames and other Thames regions, even though they are above their weighted capitation share. That is primarily to allow progress towards weighted capitation for their districts. Allocations to districts are the responsibility of regional health authorities, but progress in the Thames regions is closely related to the reconfiguration of health services in London. My right hon. Friend will be making an announcement about this after the recess, and North East Thames regional health authority will then be in a better position to set targets.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the Tomlinson report is important, not just for the improvement of primary health care in the capital, but to ensure a fairer share of resources in the outer regions such as my constituency? Will my hon. Friend comment on the discussion paper on capitation funding published by the North East Thames regional health authority in November?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the Tomlinson report is about the reconfiguration of health care in London. On my hon. Friend's second point, my understanding is that, after consultation, the North East Thames regional health authority decided to review the information in the consultation document, with the prospect, I hope and am led to believe, of seeking to do better by those districts that are still disadvantaged in terms of weighted capitation. I know that that will be of some reassurance to m y hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ms. Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Ms. Hoey: Does the Prime Minister agree that the present 999 emergency service is highly efficient, flexible and adaptable? Will he assure the House and the thousands of people lobbying Parliament today that he will put his foot down and stop the Oftel report which will—if its proposals are implemented—destroy the system and endanger the lives of millions of citizens?

The Prime Minister: I agree that, generally, over the years, the present system has been efficient, although, as the hon. Lady will know, there have been drawbacks, which have been brought to people's attention from time to time. The consultants' report will be carefully considered by all the interested parties. I give great consideration to ensuring that the new arrangements will at least maintain, and preferably improve, the current high standard of response to calls. If the hon. Lady has specific propositions to put, I know that the director general of Oftel will be happy to receive them.

Mrs. Lait: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Lait: While recognising that my right hon. Friend will be under enormous pressure at Edinburgh from our European Community partners to give ground on the rebate, may I tell him that he will have the total support of Conservative Members in resisting any such pressure?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her mention of the Edinburgh summit. There is no doubt that a large number of complex things are to be decided at Edinburgh—the enlargement negotiations are difficult, the

future finance negotiations will undoubtedly need a good deal more work and we are committed to finding, if we can, a satisfactory conclusion to the Danish problems. What is quite clear, as I told the House last week, is that there can be no change in the British abatement to the budget.

Mr. John Smith: On the issue of the Edinburgh summit, at a time when unemployment is rising faster in Britain than in any other country in the Community, should not a programme of jobs and recovery be at the top of the agenda for the Edinburgh summit? Why did the Prime Minister not even mention that in his reply?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be pleased to know that there will be a discussion among the Heads of Government on the European economic situation, and Britain, as President, specifically invited the Finance Ministers to Edinburgh. The economy has been a main topic of discussion at all the meetings that we have had in Europe in recent months, and a team of Treasury officials has been travelling throughout Europe to co-ordinate positions. I very much hope that co-ordinated measures will emerge from those discussions, but we shall have to wait to see what our partners feel at Edinburgh this weekend.

Mr. John Smith: Does not the Prime Minister understand that the obligations of being President of the Community entail more than chairing interesting discussions; that it is action that is required? Why have all the suggestions—increased support for research and development, more investment facilities for the European investment bank, infrastructure projects in transport and other areas, and emergency action on unemployment—come from others and nothing from the President of the Community?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is characteristically mistaken, as he will find from the presidency paper that has been placed for discussion this weekend. On the subject of action during the presidency, he has clearly overlooked the agreement sought for a long time between the United States and the Community on agriculture, the fact that agreement has now been reached on more than 50 single market measures, which means that we will be able to declare the single market open as at the end of this year, the resolution on making the single market work, the London conference on Yugoslavia, and the preparations for enlargement; and he has overlooked, or chosen to overlook, a great deal more as well.

Mr. John Smith: Why, in that litany, did not the Prime Minister mention unemployment? Why has no action been taken before now? Why was unemployment not on the agenda for the Birmingham summit? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that when 750 manufacturing jobs are being lost each working day in this country it is high time action was taken? His presidency will be condemned for gross inaction.

The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is desperately trying to recover his European gloss after the shameful way in which he and his colleagues have been behaving over the Maastricht Bill. As for providing opportunities for growth and jobs, he might hear in mind that we have the lowest corporation tax in the


Community or the G7, the lowest interest rates in the Community, inflation down well below 4 per cent., low direct taxation, exports at record levels, car production growing, and retail sales growing—the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not like any of this because it shows what we have done and how things are going to change.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend will be aware that since the autumn statement and the abolition of car tax, car sales since last October have increased by 22 per cent that Honda has created another 1,100 jobs at Swindon, Nissan has created another 1,800 jobs at Sunderland and that Toyota is about to create a great many more jobs in Derby. Is not that excellent news for the car industry in particular and the economy in general? [Interruption.] Does it not demonstrate that low taxation boosts consumer demand, whereas the high-taxation policies of the Opposition destroy jobs?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is learning that Opposition Members are not too keen on hearing good news—no doubt we shall hear a good deal more of that in the months to come.
People sometimes forget how far the motor car industry has come since the early 1970s. It was then a national disgrace; the trade unions wrecked it day in, day out. The fact that it has come so far is a great tribute to the work force, to the management and to the legislation passed by successive Conservative Governments.

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Given that the Prime Minister was elected, in his own words, to create a nation more at ease with itself, how does he reconcile that objective with the fact that between 3 million and 4 million people are unemployed in this country, with the number still rising, and that more than 17 million people are unemployed in the European Community? At the end of two years of his premiership and six months as President of the European Community, does he believe that he has succeeded in achieving the target that he set himself so few months ago? [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: When the hon. Gentleman has ceased being heckled by Opposition Members on the Front Bench below the Gangway, I will try to answer him. As he knows, I set out a programme for a full Parliament. He will be able to criticise if we do not realise our objectives by the end of this Parliament, by when he will see that we will have achieved them.

Mr. Harris: My right hon. Friend made some welcome remarks about doing away with excessive and bureaucratic regulations in this country. Will he perhaps start by looking at the regulations on meat hygiene and inspection which pose a real threat to small and medium-sized slaughterhouses in this country and, although a welcome start has been made, will he carry that even further?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I have asked my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade to co-ordinate a considered examination right across the Government, local government and the European Community on the extent of regulations. I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the specific examples which my hon. Friend mentions.

Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Livingstone: Has the Prime Minister been briefed on the murder of the British journalist Jonathan Moyle in Santiago and, if so, what is his response to the Chilean judge charged with the investigation of the murder, that his investigation was obstructed by the unwillingness of British officials to co-operate? How does the Prime Minister explain British officials briefing the press that Mr. Moyle died while masturbating when he was murdered by a lethal injection in the heel? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there is any link with the fact that Jonathan Moyle was investigating the arms trade of Carlos Cardoen, the main arms procurer for Iraq, who was responsible for the transmission of Matrix Churchill equipment and was also the associate of Mark Thatcher?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a series of unsubstantiated comments to which he knows I have no intention whatever of replying. If the hon. Member has detailed evidence that he believes should be examined he should take it to the proper authorities.

Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Sir John Hannam: My right hon. Friend will recall the meeting he had recently with hon. Members from the south-west when he was made aware of the particular problems of differential electricity and water charges. Has he seen the latest survey by Exeter chamber of commerce which shows that 60 per cent. of businesses there have increased their sales in the past three months, that 25 per cent. are expecting to increase their labour force and that only 4 per cent. to reduce their labour force? Will he continue his efforts to reduce the regulatory burdens which bear down on business expansion?

The Prime Minister: The figures that my hon. Friend mentions are encouraging and I am grateful to him and my other hon. Friends for the comments they made to me recently. I fully accept how important all those factors are to the prosperity of the west country, but they have similar importance for the economy of other parts of the country as well. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be doing all that we can to lift the burden from all companies—large, medium and small.

Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Raynsford: What has the Prime Minister to say to the thousands of parents of children in Greenwich who are deeply concerned at the adverse effect of Government-imposed cuts on the standards of education for their children in schools in Greenwich? Why have this Government failed entirely to respond to the concerns expressed in the signatures of thousands in the petition that I presented a few weeks ago? Why have they not bothered to make any observations on that petition or to those concerned?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind which Government published information about what is happening in schools and how children are being taught and what their results are. When he and his right hon. and hon. Friends are prepared to release that sort of information he might be in a position to issue such pious lectures.

Single Currency

Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Prime Minister whether the establishment of a single currency within the union remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: The Government believe that it is too soon to consider whether or not the United Kingdom should move to a single currency. The United Kingdom is not obliged or committed to such a move and no decision to move to a single currency will be made without the specific approval of Parliament.

Mr. Sweeney: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that under article 109J of the treaty we shall be driven inexorably towards a single currency whether we want it or not?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that. As my hon. Friend knows, we have a specific provision that will enable us at an appropriate time to decide whether or not we take part in a single currency. That provision does not prevent us from preparing with our Community partners for their move into a single currency, but we remain uncommitted until and unless the House decides that we should move into one.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that this is a closed question.

Engagements

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if' he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Michie: In view of the Prime Minister's stated commitment to defend this nation's heritage, will he and his colleagues call for a moratorium on all supermarket developments in green-field sites and launch an investigation into their value, compared with the amount of heritage that is lost under the concrete and car parks of supermarket development? The right hon. Gentleman can start the survey with Meadowhead in Sheffield.

The Prime Minister: Such matters must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, as they have been in the past, are now, and should continue to be in future.

Points of Order

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps you can help me with a point of procedure. You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that the Select Committee on Health intends to publish its document on national health service trusts on 16 December. I have documented evidence showing that someone on that Committee intends to make that confidential report available a few days before—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. This is important. Will those hon. Members who are remaining in the Chamber please do so quietly? I need to hear the hon. Lady. I understand that she is telling me that a confidential document is to be made available.

Mrs. Mahon: I have documented evidence, Madam Speaker, that that report, which is a confidential document, will be made available a few days before the Select Committee decided that it should be made available. Last Wednesday, the Select Committee decided that the document should be made available 24 hours before the press conference.
The purpose of my point of order is to ask for your ruling on that latest leak from the Select Committee, which already has a case before the Select Committee on Privileges. I believe that the Health Select Committee's procedures are being abused, and I would like your ruling.

Madam Speaker: From what I heard of the hon. Lady's remarks—and I find it difficult to hear across a noisy Chamber—the matter to which she referred is not one with which I am familiar. It sounds as though there is some contempt involved, and I ask the hon. Lady to write to me without delay, when I will certainly consider her point.

Mrs.Audrey Wise: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to a different aspect, though one also related to the Health Select Committee's report. Will she confirm that the purpose of Select Committees is to monitor the Government's work, and will she consider——

Madam Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Lady referring to me when she uses the word "she"?

Mrs. Wise: I apologise, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that the purpose of a Select Committee is to monitor the work of a Government Department, and will you consider and advise us on whether the desperate eagerness being shown by the Government to obtain the report in order immediately to rebut it illustrates that they have no intention of giving the Select Committee's recommendations the careful consideration that it is the Government's duty to give them? Is it not a fact that the Government must reply to a Select Committee report within two months but that the Government intend to reply within two minutes? Is that not illustrative of the Government's complete contempt for the Select Committee system?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady has raised matters that must be taken up in that Committee or with Ministers. They are not breaches of our Standing Orders or our procedures at this stage. On the first point made by the

hon. Lady, of course it is the task of the Select Committees to investigate as thoroughly as possible the workings of the appropriate Government Department.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your assistance? Late this morning I received an emergency telephone call from a constituent who had a friend who was due to arrive in this country this evening from Lagos. The friend had been refused a visitor's visa by the British high commission in Lagos. I telephoned the high commission in Lagos and was informed that the second secretary refused to take my call. Is that not contempt of the House and obstruction of the work of Members of Parliament?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady alleges that she is being obstructed in her work as a Member of Parliament. If that is what she believes, it may well be a question of privilege and she should write to me immediately.

Mr. D. N. CampbellSavours: Do you, Madam Speaker, concur that, if the Health Select Committee has taken a decision in deliberative session not to release its report until 24 hours before it is due to be published, no member of that Committee is in a position to reveal the report's contents to any member of the press or of the Government? Will you confirm that?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members put matters to me which are not points of order on which I cannot rule and of which I have no knowledge other than what has been said to me across the Floor of the House. It is unfair for them to expect the Speaker of the House to rule on matters on which he has no information or knowledge whatsoever.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It is with some trepidation that I raise a point of order further to the issue of the Health Select Committee, but can you, Madam Speaker, advise me whether it is in order for our proceedings at a deliberative meeting of the Select Committee to be regarded as confidential so that no member of the press should be aware of those proceedings?

Madam Speaker: Of course; I would have thought that every hon. Member was aware that hearings in a deliberative form are confidential to that Committee. Are there any more points of order?

Mr. David Trimble: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may have noticed that twice this afternoon during questions there was a failure in the amplification system in the House. On two occasions when hon. Members were speaking the microphones were not open and it was extremely difficult to hear. I have formed the opinion in the course of the last six months that the present amplification system in the Chamber is not a patch on the old one. We were told that the present microphones were of greater sensitivity, but either the microphones are not well placed or they are not being well operated. Could this matter be looked into?

Mrs. Edwina Currie: rose——

Madam Speaker: Is it further to that point of order?

Mrs. Currie: Yes, Madam Speaker. Is the problem not with the microphones but with the fact that so many hon. Members look alike, which causes difficulties for the


operator? Surely, if there were more women in the House who all looked different, the operators would have no trouble.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady would not expect me to agree that there are any look-alikes in the House. But, in all seriousness, our equipment has been improved. Inquiries and investigations into it are still being made. I have no problem whatsoever, because I have my own equipment here, but I will have the matter looked into.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask, with what I hope is customary politeness, when you decided to advise the House of a closed question during Prime Minister's Question Time, and whether you intend to continue the practice?

Madam Speaker: It is not my practice to advise the House of a closed question, but I happen to think that, when a question is as closed as the one to which the hon. Gentleman refers, it is a matter of courtesy to remind the hon. Member who is on his feet. Hon. Members often forget that questions are closed, and I think that it is preferable to avoid embarrassment.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, nowadays I am very reluctant to rise on a point of order; the House is noisy enough without me. Nevertheless, I have to say—and I have been saying it for years—that, since the introduction of these damned television cameras and the related hearing equipment, the whole purpose of the engineering control is to avoid any interference with the television output by our own bits of equipment, as you call them. That is the problem: the primary consideration is the audience outside, and hon. Members can go hang if they cannot hear.

Madam Speaker: That was a most interesting comment.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland),

That the Matter of public expenditure in Scotland. being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration—[Mr. MacKay.]

Question agreed to.

Plain Language

Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I have no problem with either the technology or the amplification, Madam Speaker.
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to secure improvements to the language and layout of certain contracts.
Language is what disinguishes the human race; it is the characteristic that sets us apart and makes us unique. Even I, as an ardent animal lover, must acknowledge that, however eloquently a dog may bark, he cannot tell us that his parents were poor but honest. Language makes us unique, and we in this country are born with the privilege of having a unique language as our parent tongue—English, the richest language in the history of humanity.
Our language is rich precisely because it is not pure. Emerson called it
the sea which receives tributaries from every region under heaven.
It is the language of Chaucer and the King James Bible; of Keats, Joyce, Anthony Trollope and Anthony Burgess. It has taken 2,000 years to reach this far—and where is it now, in 1992? Let me show you, Madam Speaker, by quoting from the terms of sale offered by that excellent builders' merchant, Jewson Ltd:
If and to the extent that any person by whom the Seller has been supplied with the goods supplied hereunder (hereinafter referred to as 'the Supplier') validly excludes restricts or limits his liability to the Seller in respect of the said goods or of any loss or damage arising in connection therewith the liability of the Seller to the Buyer in respect of the said goods or of any loss or damage arising in connection therewith shall be correspondingly excluded restricted or limited.
There you have it, Madam Speaker: the English language today—and those were just five of more than 100 such lines that feature on the back of the Jewson delivery note. When the driver drops off the breeze block and says, "Sign here, guy", what I have just read out constitutes 5 per cent. of what the recipient is agreeing to—whether he likes it or not, and whether he understands it or not.
Does it matter? Yes, I believe that it does. It cannot be good that people regularly sign contracts that they do not understand, and, indeed, are not meant to understand.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has the hon. Gentleman read the Maastricht treaty?

Mr. Brandreth: As it happens, I have and I understood it, but I can understand that it might be a little sophisticated for the hon. Gentleman. However, the rest of this is in plain English, so he will feel wholly at home.
Costly mistakes can be made. A constituent of mine discovered that when he signed an incomprehensible contract to lease a photocopier. When he wanted to change the photocopier, he was faced with the option of a so-called settlement charge of about £10,000, which was three times the value of the original equipment, or the prospect of leasing the equipment, whose lifetime according to the manufacturer was three years, for a total of seven years. None of that was clear from the contract whose wording was deliberately obfuscatory and arcane. [Interruption.] Translation will come later!
The Bill is designed to encourage the use of clear, plain language in commercial contracts and to prevent the unscrupulous, arrogant or incompetent from hiding


behind legalese, jargon, gobbledegook or small print. It would apply to consumer contracts, consumer credit contracts—think of all the confusion that we would all be spared if we understood the small print that comes with our Access cards—and housing contracts.
The plain language that I have in mind is not so much the language of Shakespeare as that of Dickens, not William Shakespeare but Geoffrey Dickens—clear, no-nonsense language that says what it means and means what it says, language that is indeed a lean, mean fighting machine.
A plain language law might appear to be a contradiction in terms because is it not the law and lawyers which are responsible for much of the gobbledegook found in contracts? I believe I am right in saying that in 1595 an English Chancellor chose to make an example of a particularly wordy document filed in his court. He ordered a hole to be cut in the centre of the document—all 120 pages of it—and had the author's head stuffed through it. The offender was then led around Westminster hall, 100 yards from where we are now—even 100 metres—as an example to all and sundry. Alas, that Elizabethan lesson did not stick; and that is where I come in, four centuries later but not a moment too soon.
I propose that the contracts covered by the Bill should be written in clear and readily understandable language using words with common and every-day meanings, be arranged in a logical order, be suitably divided into paragraphs and headings, be clearly laid out and be easily legible.
It is not asking much, but you, Madam Speaker, might well ask, "Why do people sign contracts they don't understand?" Often it is because they are in no position to negotiate. Most consumer contracts are in standard form, drawn up by the supplier and offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The Bill would help consumers. It would also help businesses because those which have taken voluntary steps in the right direction have learnt that clear contracts have advantages and that intelligible contracts promote customers' trust and loyalty and encourage consumers to stick to their contracts. They also achieve savings in management and staff time. The new law would encourage better practice and, if necessary, would enforce it, although the sanctions that I propose are moderate.
The experience in the United States is that a plain language law such as this would immediately improve practice and standards, but, if a contract did not comply with the Act, the party which made the contract in the course of business would be liable to an action for damages brought by the other party—so there is also something in this for the lawyers.
That said, there is no question of any form of criminal penalty. Offending contracts would not be void, unenforceable or voidable. I propose compensation for the consumer who can show actual loss and, in some cases, a small sum of additional damages. I also propose, as back-up, an extension of the existing powers of the Director General of Fair Trading to deal directly with businesses which ignore the new law.
The case for such a law is overwhelming. Clear, coherent, easy-to-read consumer contracts bring advantages to consumers and to business, but the signs of voluntary implementation are piecemeal. I believe that, as

in the United States, the chief merit of the new law would be its impetus for change. Alas, only legislation will prompt businesses to sit up and start to take notice of their own paperwork.
I trust that the advantages of the Bill will be obvious to the House. Inevitably, some people will not see its virtues, but then, as the saying has it, a slight inclination of the cranium is as adequate as a spasmodic movement of one optic to an equine quadruped utterly devoid of visionary capacity.

Mr. Paul Flynn: I shall not detain the House unduly, but I think that a protest must be made against the linguistic chauvinism of the speech by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). He referred to English being the mother tongue of all hon. Members, ignoring the native British languages which were spoken in this country when the speakers of Anglo-Saxon were howling, pagan barbarians.
If I were to speak in the language of this country, and if I were to say to you, Madam Speaker:
When that Aprill with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote"——

Madam Speaker: Order. I would respond to the hon. Gentleman by saying that that is not understood in this House.

Mr. Flynn: With respect, Madam Speaker, it is in order because the language I am speaking is English. It is the English of Chaucer, to which the hon. Member for City of Chester referred. If I went on to quote in the beautiful language of Chaucer, I should be incomprehensible to you, Madam Speaker, and to every other hon. Member. I am allowed to use the language of Chaucer, but I am not allowed to use the language of Wales, which is understood by many people.
This is the only Parliament that Wales has, yet the language of Wales, the language of Scotland and the ancient language of Ireland are forbidden here. There are Parliaments that conduct their business in a dozen languages. I make that point because of the comments made by the hon. Member for City of Chester. His Bill called for plain English, but it should also call for plain Welsh, plain Gaelic and plain Irish Gaelic.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gyles Brandreth, Mr. Alan Howarth, Mr. David Willetts, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Roger Moate, Ms. Liz Lynne, Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mr. Roger Evans, Mr. Rod Richards, Ms. Joan Walley and Ms. Glenda Jackson.

PLAIN LANGUAGE

Mr. Gyles Brandreth accordingly presented a Bill to secure improvements to the language and layout of certain contracts And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 January and to be printed. [Bill 97.]

Opposition Day

[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Unemployment

Madam Speaker: I must tell the House that t have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the rising tide of unemployment with its intolerable cost to the British people; notes with concern the high level of redundancies in British manufacturing industry, the falling level of job vacancies, and the steep increase in the number of long-term unemployed; condemns the Government's Autumn Statement for its total failure to tackle the jobs crisis at a time when unemployment in Britain is rising faster than anywhere else in the European Community and is forecast to rise above 3 million once again; regrets the continued neglect of training and investment in skills which are essential to the modern economy; and further condemns the Government for squandering the opportunities of the British Presidency to develop a strategy for growth and employment for the whole of the European Community.
In plain language, in Britain today more than 4 million people are out of work. That is the real figure reflecting what is really happening to real people in the hard, real world of Britain today—a Britain in which 20 million working days are lost every week through unemployment. What a waste!
The Government do not publish the real figures. Instead, every month they churn out the official figures, reduced now by no fewer than 30 successive statistical fiddles. That shoddy process may reduce the embarrassment of Tory Ministers, but it does not reduce the job queues or the pain of unemployment.
Even if we take the Government's own figures, the rising tide of unemployment is there for all to see, to feel and to fear. Last month, there were 2,868,000 of our fellow citizens officially out of work. More than 30 unemployed people were chasing every job vacancy, with no fewer than 70 people chasing every job vacancy in London. Almost 1 million people had been out of work for more than a year. Some quarter of a million of the people out of work were young people who face the worst job prospects in our country's history. As we all know, there is worse to come. Parts of the country that once seemed almost immune to unemployment are now suffering as badly as the worst.
After the job losses of the past two years, there are now fewer than 4·5 million people employed in manufacturing industry in Britain. Just 4·5 million people are left making things in a country with a population of 57 million. However, the Government do not seem to care. For years, they have been prepared to let British industry be wiped out, in the fond belief that the people of Britain could earn a living by selling one another hamburgers and insurance policies. Even the hamburger joints and the insurance companies are in trouble now.

Mr. Tim Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, not at the moment.
The Tories keep saying that if an industry is not paying its way, it should be closed down. It is a good job for us that the rest of the world does not think like that, because, under the Tories, Britain is not paying its way. By the standards that the Tories have set, the Bundesbank would be sending in the brokers' men.
The Tories used to claim that the factories that were closing were in rust-bucket industries which were bound to close. There was some truth in that, but it is not true any more. The 500,000 manufacturing jobs that have gone in the past two years are mainly from modern, high-tech industries with highly skilled work forces—the industries of the future if we are to have an industrial future.
For far too long, far too many people have been without a job. When one loses one's job, one loses one's income and becomes dependent on benefits, if one is entitled to them. However, people who lose their jobs do not lose just their money. They can also lose their self-respect, sense of worth and purpose in life. People without a job are beset by an awful feeling that they no longer matter. Unemployment can lead to the break-up of marriages and to separation, divorce and domestic violence.
However, the harm caused by unemployment does not stop there. Unemployment damages the health of the jobless and their families. If one is out of a job one's mental and physical health deteriorates. Unemployment does not just make people ill. In plain English, unemployment kills and maims. It kills mainly by cancer, suicide, accidents and violence. For a middle-aged man to lose his job doubles his chances of dying in the next 10 years. Unemployment does not just kill the jobless it kills their wives, husbands and children—born and unborn. What a wicked waste.
The cost of unemployment is not just borne by the jobless and their families. The Secretary of State admitted recently that it costs the taxpayer £9,000 a year to keep someone out of work. That is £9,000 in benefits paid out and tax not taken it. Even according to the official figures, the present mass unemployment is costing taxpayers £25 billion this year. That is equal to more than £1,000 for every family in the land. What a waste.
It does not end there. When people are out of work, they are not producing anything. Back at work, they could produce goods and services which would add to the country's wealth. if just the 10 per cent. who are officially jobless were back at work, they would produce goods and services worth more than £50 billion. That is equal to more than £2,000 for every family in the land. Instead, they are doing nothing. What a waste.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, certainly not to the hon. Gentleman.
Even by the crudest and coldest Treasury standards of accountancy, and making no allowance for human misery, mass unemployment is costing a fortune. The cost of mass unemployment in terms of lost production——

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, not at the moment.
The cost of mass unemployment in terms of lost production and loss to the taxpayer is therefore equal to more than £3,000 for every family in Britain. That is surely an intolerable cost.

Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has described a dire and concerning situation, and we share his concern. Why is the impression given that his party, given those circumstances, would seek to make matters worse by embracing the social chapter and increasing the burden on industry and also, no doubt, by increasing taxation which would also increase the burden on industry and make the level of unemployment much worse?

Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman bides his time, I will come to those matters.
The cost of unemployment does not end with those costs. The damage to health places extra strain on the national health service. Domestic violence and family breakdown place extra demands on social services, the police and the courts. By breaking up families, unemployment adds to homelessness. By giving young people nothing to do, it leads to crime. That does not mean that not having a job automatically makes someone a criminal. Unemployment does not provide an excuse for theft or violence.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, I will not give way until I have finished making my point.
Mass youth unemployment means the breakdown of the ties that bind society together. Unemployment opens a gap between the generations. It creates a gulf between the dispossessed and those with possessions. With no honest way to earn a living, unemployed young people are exposed to the temptations of a life of crime which can provide more money and excitement than respectable society can offer.

Mr. George Howarth: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of the relationship between crime and unemployment, will he comment on Clarke Foods which recently closed down Lyons Maid in my constituency? Perhaps he will refer specifically to allegations that have been made of insider dealing, fraud and possible gun-running by the proprietors of that company. Does not that example contrast sharply with the risks that young people take? The people who own companies such as Clarke Foods are often dodgy.

Mr. Dobson: I do not have such detailed information about the owners of Clarke Foods. However, I believe that the proposed closure—throwing people out of work and reducing their pay—is a crime against the people of Knowsley.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's belief that increased unemployment among young people will result in a higher burglary or crime rate. Is it not true that, although we had high employment, the crime rate continued to increase at a rate of which none of us would approve? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Sussex, which has high unemployment at present, the burglary rate has gone down?

Mr. Dobson: The fact is that we have had mass unemployment in many parts of the country since this Government took office in 1979. We have had rising crime, year in and year out. The greatest increase in the crime rate has occurred in the areas with the highest unemployment. As my hon. Friends will confirm, large and small pockets of disenchantment are developing all over Britain.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No.
Those pockets of disenchantment are filled with young people who are alienated from society. Those young people share fewer of our values, and are less and less convinced that anyone cares for them. They are prey to exploitation by the evil right-wing forces of prejudice, hatred and unreason, which we have already seen unleashed elsewhere in Europe.
What do the Government have to offer in response to all of that? Nothing, or next to nothing. The Secretary of State expresses her concern and sympathy. She talks about counselling and training. But she knows that her Department's training budget per unemployed person is less than half of what it was just three short years ago. Counselling and training and concern and sympathy may ease the pain of unemployment, but they are not enough. The only cure for unemployment is a job. The Secretary of State is doing nothing about jobs.
The autumn statement was so feeble that the Secretary of State and her colleagues have refused to estimate how many jobs it will create. I think that the reason for that refusal is that any jobs created would certainly be outpaced by the Government-induced job destruction which is taking place at the same time. Neither the Secretary of State nor the Government has anything to offer.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the best ways for young people to find jobs is through youth training and that the Government have probably the largest youth training programme in Europe? Does he accept that, for other people, employment action is important in providing training? Will he tell the House why the Transport and General Workers Union—which sponsors several Front-Bench Opposition Members, one of whom is sitting next to him—has said consistently that it will boycott those programmes?

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman would do well to consider the true record of the various training programmes. Let us take employment training——

Mr. Coombs: What about youth training?

Mr. Dobson: I will come to youth training in a moment. Employment training was much vaunted until the Secretary of State herself denounced it recently and said that it needed to be replaced. I can see why she denounced it. Fewer than one in five of the people who go on employment training end up with a job. The figures show that people stand less chance of finding a job if they have been on employment training than if they have not. That is scarcely a success rate. About one in four of those who go on youth training do not get a job and 65 per cent. do not obtain a qualification. The scheme is an effort, but it is not good enough.
What has the Secretary of State to offer anyone in Britain? What does she have to offer Andy Cartlidge? He is one of 325 people who lost their job at Rolls-Royce in Nuneaton. He is a trained craftsman in his late 20s. He worked in that factory using state-of-the-art equipment to work sophisticated metals to produce discs and spacers for aero engine turbines. He is out of a job now. He is one of the most highly skilled people in Britain. He does not need training; he needs a job.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Dobson: I shall press on for the moment because other hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Oppenheim: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for an Opposition spokesman to say consistently that he will give way to me and keep a humble Back-Bencher in a state of excitement and anticipation and then to give way to everyone else?

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. I would not describe the hon. Gentleman as a humble Back-Bencher by any means.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hope that my hon. Friend will be happy if I do not hit the note of petulance that is being struck on the Conservative Benches. This is a serious debate. Will my hon. Friend consider that one way in which the Government could protest about unemployment and do something to redeem their position would be to abandon the Bill to privatise British Rail? They would thereby protect 1,500 jobs in my constituency, where 5,000 jobs have already been lost in manufacturing.

Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with the point that my hon. Friend makes. Indeed, I shall deal with that matter later in my speech, if I am allowed to reach it.
What does the Secretary of State have to say to Linda Wilkinson of York? Compulsory competitive tendering left her with the choice of giving up her job cooking school dinners at English Martyrs school in York or accepting a £600 cut in pay and the loss of statutory sick pay and other benefits. Is that the choice that the Tories offer to hard-working women in Britain, where the Minister responsible for equal opportunities is also the Secretary of State for Employment?
What does the Secretary of State have to offer the unemployed in Basildon. where unemployment has doubled in the past two years? People in Basildon have lost jobs recently at Yardley Perfumes, Northern Telecoms and even, dare I say it, Access. Basildon people lost jobs when Marconi in Chelmsford laid off hundreds. The jobcentre in Basildon recently advertised a job for a clerical assistant with the police force. More than 500 people applied for that job. What does the Secretary of State have to say to the 500-odd people who did not get that one job?

Mr. John Sykes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in May this year the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) admitted the devastating effect that the minimum wage would have on jobs and said that "any silly fool" knew that? Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman had read out what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) actually said, I should be able to agree, because it was true. As the hon. Gentleman did not read it out, I cannot agree with him.
Those are just a few from millions of examples.

Mr. Oppenheim: rose——

Mr. Nicholls: rose——

Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way to the riff-raff at the back.

Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman will not give way to a humble Back Bencher, why will he not give way to an arrogant Back Bencher who at least knows what he is talking about?

Madam Speaker: That is a point of frustration and not a point of order.

Mr. Dobson: Perhaps I should explain that, when many people have no jobs, I am reluctant to give way to Tory Back Benchers who have legions of jobs between them.

Mr. Oppenheim: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order with which I can deal. If it is not, I shall not deal leniently with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Oppenheim: Is it in order for the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) to make a claim about the "legions of jobs" that I supposedly have when my only job is in this House?

Madam Speaker: Order. Let us have some order in the House this afternoon. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) has explained his position and it is recorded.

Mr. Dobson: The examples that I gave are just a few of millions which show what is happening, but unemployment also affects people who are still at work. Under this Government most people in work think that they are lucky to have a job. Their workplace is filled with rumours of redundancy and they do not fancy their chances of finding a new job. If they are made redundant they are reluctant to pursue new jobs because they fear the insecurity that goes with being the last in—they may turn out to be the first out. They are frightened to speak out at work for fear of the sack, and they are frightened to borrow or to spend because they rightly fear another rainy day.
That fearful and aquiescent work force may appeal to the Victorian values of the Tories, but it is no role for fellow citizens in a democracy.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what the Opposition would do to solve the problem? They are very good at telling us what we have done wrong. He has already said that unemployment is terribly wasteful, and I agree. I am sure that he agrees that most unemployed people desperately want to work. Does he agree that we should set up a voluntary workfare system, because thousands of unemployed people would accept such work if they had the chance to do so? Does he recognise that the Secretary of State has gone some way towards agreeing with my views by agreeing to set up a pilot workfare scheme?

Mr. Dobson: My general view is that if there is work to be done and people to do it, they should be paid the rate for the job; workfare would not then be necessary.
What do people have to show for all the pain that they have suffered? Tory apologists have argued for years that unemployment is the price that we must pay for economic advance—that it is the medicine to cure our economic ills. The first thing to note is that those who prescribe unemployment as a medicine always fight shy of taking a bracing draught of it themselves.
Secondly, that argument is total economic rubbish. After more than thirteen and a half years of Tory Governments doling out doses of unemployment by the


bucketful, what have we got? Britain is economically weaker than it has ever been; our share of' the world trade in manufactures has fallen; the trade surplus that the Tories inherited has been turned in 10 successive years of deficit and is heading for an official total of £14 billion this year; Government borrowing is set to hit record levels; the gap between rich and poor is the widest that it has been this century; investment is down; and bankruptcies are up. On top of all that, the Government have allowed Britain—the only country in western Europe with substantial reserves of coal, oil and natural gas—to fritter away our fuel trade surplus and to become a net importer of fuel again.
That brings me to the failure of Tory Ministers for which they will surely never be forgiven. I refer to the way in which they have squandered the advantage of North sea oil and gas. Handled properly, the takings from the North sea could have been used to transform Britain, getting us ready for the challenges of the new century, which I remind Conservatives Members is only seven short years away—wealth for Britain, protection for the balance of trade, capital to invest in our future and massive revenues for the Government.

Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon. Gentleman has said much about investment and earlier he spoke of a young man who had worked for Rolls-Royce. Is he aware that the advances of modern technology have meant that companies such as Rolls-Royce can purchase machines that can do the jobs of 20 or 30 men over a 24-hour period? Does he appreciate that problem, which is also a problem of investment?

Mr. Dobson: I had intended to deal with that issue later. Rolls-Royce, one of our blue chip companies which should be putting a great deal of money into the future, is investing less in research now that it is privatised than it invested when it was in public ownership.
Over the last thirteen and a half years, the Tories' revenues from the North sea have totalled £110 billion. What do we have to show for it? Nothing. It has all been squandered on financing unemployment, on tax concessions for the very rich and on trying to ease the pain of the poll tax. Every penny has gone.
A far-sighted Government would have used that money to invest in research and development, in new plant and equipment, in education and training for our young people and on retraining our older people. But the Government did not do that. They were too busy pushing through tax concessions for, for example, the Duke of Westminster, to whom, if we understand theEvening Standard aright. the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is giving money to help him support his money-raising activities from his estates.

Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There has for long been a tradition in the House that if an occupant of the Front Bench refers specifically to another hon. Member, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) just has, he should gives way. The conventions that apply to Back Benchers should apply to Front Benchers.

Madam Speaker: The House knows that it is a convention, but it is entirely up to the right hon. or hon. Member who has the Floor whether or not he gives way.

Mr. Dobson: If the impatient and well-paid hon. Member for Teignbridge had waited for me to finish another sentence, he would know that I had intended to give way to him.
The Tories have also spent their time giving subsidies to foreign property speculators. I cannot believe that giving £370 million in subsidies to the Canadian developers of Canary Wharf was a good investment for the rest of Britain.

Mr. Nicholls: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that any prospective employer listening to his contribution to today's debate will be encouraged to provide job opportunities, especially as the hon. Gentleman is on record as recently as September as describing employers as
stinking, lousy, thieving, incompetent scum"?
That has been the nature of the hon. Gentleman's contribution today.

Mr. Dobson: My remarks in September appear, like Banquo's ghost, every time I come into the Chamber. I will make the position clear. I withdraw not one word of what I said, remembering that I addressed those words to those who pay poverty level wages and pay themselves a fortune on the backs of those poverty level workers, so they are exactly as I described them, which is why I do not withdraw a word of what I said.
Instead of using the heaven-sent opportunity of North sea oil to lift the skills and qualities of our people——

Mr. Oppenheim: rose——

Mr. Dobson: I will definitely not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Those revenues should have been used to lift the skills and qualities of our people to levels as high as any in the world. Instead, the Government have given up any idea of putting our people in a position where they can compete with the best. They have abandoned the idea of competing with German industry through innovation, quality and skill. They have thrown in the towel. Faced with the choice of Britain as a science park or a sweat shop, the Tories have opted for the sweat shop. They say that our people can now only compete if they work long hours for low wages in poor conditions.
When it comes to photo opportunities at international conferences, Tory Ministers are pictured as part of the Group of Seven developed countries, but when it comes to economic ambition the same Tories see our country as being in a trade war with the third world. That is why they fight against every effort to improve working conditions and reject the social chapter. They know that while they are in charge Britain cannot compete on quality with the best; under the Tories, we are reduced to competing on cost with the worst. Why else would the Prime Minister think that our miners should compete with coal produced by child labour in Colombia?

Mr. Oliver Heald: How can the hon. Gentleman describe British industry in those derogatory terms when Britain has six of the top 10 businesses in Europe competing with the best on quality?

Mr. Dobson: We do not say that it applies to every industry——

Mr. Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman referred to the use of child labour in Colombia to produce coal that is exported. That statement is absolutely untrue and I ask that he withdraw it.

Madam Speaker: Order. That is certainly not a point of order which the Chair of this House can resolve at this stage.

Mr. Dobson: As the president of the Colombian mining industry says that there is child labour in Colombia. I am willing to go along with that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Domestic coal."] Let us see the Tory vision of the future: it is all right if the children are producing domestic coal. That is absolutely brilliant.
What should the Government do, apart from quieten down some of their Back Benchers? First, they should act to stop the rot. More than 300,000 jobs are presently on the line as a direct result of Government policies. More than 100,000 jobs are threatened by the Government's pit closure programme, partly induced by the import of child-labour coal from Colombia. Another 100,000 jobs are likely to disappear from local councils as a result of the new grant settlement. Dinner ladies, road sweepers and home helps will all be thrown on the scrap heap. The national health service could lose as many as 25,000 jobs as a result of the cuts now being pushed through. The Government could stop all that today.
Jobs in the Post Office, shipbuilding and defence supplies have all been marked to go by the Government. They could prevent that by abandoning Post Office privatisation, phasing their warship orders to help the shipyards, and buying British equipment and ammunition. It was bad enough to sell arms to Iraq, but if the Royal Ordnance closures go through, we could end up buying arms from Iraq. North sea revenues could have been used to diversify from defence to civilian production, drawing on the supremely skilled work forces of many of our defence manufacturers. Instead, the Government have let them go. Immediate Government action could save all those jobs.
However, it cannot stop there. In times like these, the Government have a duty to reduce unemployment by creating jobs. The Tories claim that Governments cannot create jobs but can only destroy them. I accept that that is true of the present Tory Government but they should not generalise from the particular. The Government have destroyed thousands of jobs, but that does not mean that Governments cannot create them.

Mr. James Couchman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, not at the moment.
Governments can and do create jobs directly through investment and intervening to provide financial and other help for private investors, and indirectly by raising aggregate demand for goods and services. All those approaches would create jobs and the Government should adopt them before the roll call of the jobless becomes endless.
Once again, I call on the Government to halt the 300,000 job losses that will be created by direct Government action. As we have said time and again, the Government should begin to realise the takings from the sale of council houses for investment in new housing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich

(Mrs. Dunwoody) said, the Government should abandon rail privatisation and, instead, start a major investment programme in the railway system to give every part of Britain fast, direct and reliable connections to the rest of Europe through the channel tunnel.
The Government should release funds to improve the London underground and local railway systems. They should put seed corn investment into science parks and other industrial developments associated with research and higher education. They should invest more in effective, high-quality skill training rather than the ineffective job-chasing schemes that dominate their policies at present. Those proposals will start to stop the rot, but even bolder long-term measures are required.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: My hon. Friend has referred to the shipyards. Is it not a fact that the Government could make great inroads in reducing unemployment at the country's various ports if they decided to use "Options for Change" to build the badly needed merchant ships? I think that all hon. Members recognise the need for a merchant fleet to put shipyard workers back to work and our seamen back on ships that they can sail.

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend raises some good points, which are relevant in the present circumstances on Merseyside. I am sure that other of my hon. Friends will wish to press the matter of Cammell Laird and other yards.
I believe that the first requirement of bold measures is to return full employment to its proper place in the economic and political ambitions of both Britain and Europe. Nobody pretends that full employment can be achieved immediately, but it will never be achieved by accident. First, we need to decide that we want full employment. Only after we have decided the destination can we begin to plan the journey and to work out the route.
Full employment cannot be achieved in Britain alone; it must also be put back on the agenda of the European Community. At present, whichever figure we use, we find that more than 16 million people are officially out of work in the Community, which is shameful and presents a threat to the cohesion of the European Community. Some people cannot understand why Denmark voted no. They could do worse than look at the unemployment figures. When Denmark joined the Community in 1972 there were just 23,000 Danes out of work—now the figure exceeds 316,000. A European commitment to get those people back to work would, I suspect, work wonders with Danish public opinion.

Mr. Marlow: What are the figures here in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Dobson: The increase is not as bad.
Mass unempoyment does more than threaten the cohesion of the Community—it threatens democracy. The unemployed young have always been a principal recruiting ground of the racist, anti-Semitic, fascist, right-wing parties in Europe. With the neo-fascists strutting around in Italy and murdering neo-nazis stomping around in Germany, and their counterparts reappearing in France and Spain, mass unemployment must be tackled now, Europewide.
All the democratic parties of Europe must address the problems of the unemployed in Europe before the unemployed transfer their loyalties, disillusionment and anger elsewhere. That is why getting Europe back to work should have been top of the agenda for the Edinburgh summit. Theological discussions about subsidiarity should have given way to practical plans to maintain and create jobs.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I am sure that Members on both sides of the House share the hon. Gentleman's concern about unemployment throughout the European Community. Would he like to comment on the words of the Commissioner with responsibility for employment, Mrs. Vasso Papandreou, who only last week in this House expressed her views on how work and jobs would be created in the Europe of the future? She expressed some anxiety that investment in jobs involving what was described as too much capital investment—investment in manufacturing jobs—was not the way forward, and said that future jobs in Europe should be created in the service sector. I would not wish to denigrate that view, but it is certainly not the way in which the Government are approaching the problem. It is the socialist view of Europe——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I remind the hon. Lady that interventions should take the form of questions, not speeches.

Mr. Dobson: I am certainly prepared to comment on that. Germany may he able to afford a slightly higher proportion of its economy being devoted to the service sector, because it starts with 12 per cent. more people in manufacturing jobs than the European average, whereas we are below the European average. We are the country that practically got rid of our manufacturing base. We were promised time and again that the service sector could take the strain. But the service sector is not taking the strain: the 4 million people who are out of work are taking the strain.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I note with great interest the correlation that the hon. Gentleman has drawn between violence in European countries and unemployment. The part of his jurisdiction in which I live has the highest unemployment in Europe. It is no coincidence that the three constituencies in Europe with the highest unemployment are represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume), for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) and by me. Is it any surprise, therefore, that the correlation between violence and unemployment has demonstrated itself for the past 20 years in the north of Ireland?
I wish to pose a question and to ask the hon. Gentleman's advice. If there were three British constituencies—in England, Scotland and Wales—with the highest unemployment in Europe, would they not have been made disaster areas and been given special attention?

Mr. Dobson: There may be something in what the hon. Gentleman says. The problems of Northern Ireland are not simple, and there are clear links between violence and unemployment. I am glad to hear him confirm the points that I have been trying to make, which have largely fallen on deaf Conservative ears.
What are needed now are bold and positive policies, not just to cut unemployment but to aim for full employment. Full employment works. It worked when the Secretary of State and I started work in the early 1960s, when unemployment was low and there was almost one vacancy for every person seeking a job. That was a good time to go into the work force—a great deal better than now. Full employment works and is good for everyone. It gets people off the dole queues; it gives them self respect. It gives school leavers a choice of jobs. It gives people the security to change jobs. Full employment allows people at work to say what they think. It saves the taxpayer a fortune. It creates more wealth; it makes possible a better life for all our people.

Mr. Couchman: rose——

Mr. Dobson: I have given way an enormous number of times.
To bring about full employment will not be easy. Technological change, as I acknowledged, can take away jobs as well as create them. Therein lies another criticism of this Conservative Government. As Benjamin Disraeli, born in my constituency, said of Conservatism:
it offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation for the future.
Faced with the changing nature of work, faced with the adjustments that society will have to make in response to these changes in work, the do-nothing Tory Government have given no thought to the problem and made no preparation for it. All, we understand, is to be left to market forces—and we cannot trust market forces.
We need to look in future to the capacity and skills of our people and measure them against the demands of our economy and try to match them. If we go about it the right way we can match them to suit the needs of the work force as well as the needs of the economy.
Properly organised, most people in future could be able to choose when to work and what hours each day, what days in a week, what weeks in a year and what years in a lifetime. That could transform, particularly, the position of women at work and so transform society.
With more and more powerful machines to do more and more of the work, we shall need to share out the work that needs to be done by men and women and the rewards that go with it. We in the Labour party reject the untrammelled free market approach to the future of work. We need only look at what is happening today. This very day we have, at the same time, 4 million people on the dole while millions of others are working far too long hours in circumstances that threaten their physical and mental well-being and clash with the needs of their families.
We need to invest to make this change, but we need to decide that the Government has a role in this change. Those in the Conservative party who reject the role of Governments in this change want things to go on as they are. The profits of our existing industries and the products of the hard work of their employees must be invested and reinvested in plant and equipment, in research and development, and in training for a better and more high-tech future. The people of our country want to see that investment and are entitled to see it. They have been sickened over the past few years by the way many company directors have lined their pockets with enormous salaries, share options and other perks, while at the same time laying off large parts of their skilled and loyal work forces and preaching for others the merits of frugality. The


mass unemployment of recent times has rendered such behaviour totally unacceptable and likely to undermine the stability of our society.
What we need now is an end to the rising tide of unemployment and the unacceptable burden it places on the people of our country. We need a package of measures to get Britain and Europe back to work. As we approach the new century we need a long-term commitment to aim for full employment and a new approach to work which shares out its demands and rewards more fairly and effectively. Nothing less will do.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
recognises the need for the United Kingdom economy to remain competitive at a time of world recession; rejects the job destroying policies of Her Majesty's Opposition including the national minimum wage; notes that the United Kingdom has the second highest proportion of its population in employment of any country in the European Community; congratulates the Government on the new opportunities afforded by the Autumn Statement; and welcomes the Government's new package of 1·5 million employment and training opportunities providing more help than ever before to help unemployed people get back into work.".
There is one thing on which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and I agree and that is about the importance of the subject under debate. Unemployment is a difficult and distressing experience for the individuals concerned, and for their families and for the communities in which they live. Of course, in a time of recession, the fear of losing a job is very real. All of us, on both sides of the House, understand that.
This afternoon I intend to set out what the Government are doing, first, to promote growth in the economy and in jobs—because lasting employment is created only in a sound economy—and, secondly, to help those who have lost their jobs to get back into work. Jobs are created by the initiatives and enterprise of businesses and of the individuals who work in them. It is clear, on this side of the House at least, that jobs can come only from the competitiveness, the efficiency and the earnings of our industry and commerce.
But the Government have a vital role to play. They need to ensure the right economic framework; and because people, if they become unemployed or face redundancy, are nervous and anxious, they need to know that there is genuine and effective help at hand.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does not the Secretary of State accept that Government privatisation policies are costing hundreds and thousands of jobs and that to privatise British Rail will not only destroy the existing integrated service but will throw many hundreds of people on to the dole quite unnecessarily?

Mrs. Shephard: Of course I do not accept the hon. Lady's premise. This country needs a proper infrastructure of efficient railway services and communications. If that can be achieved better by privatisation, so it should be. That will stimulate the economy and the creation of real jobs.
Before I describe the Government measures provided for those who are unemployed or who face redundancy, I will remind the House of certain points that Opposition Members like to ignore. They like to ignore the fact that

there is a world recession. They like to maintain, in their unremitting efforts to talk Britain down, that ours is the only country in the world to be in recession; the only country in the world to be affected by unemployment. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: A booklet circulated among all the high commissions and embassies throughout the world entitled "Invest in Britain" states that Britain's labour force is the cheapest in the world.—cheaper than those of France, Germany, and America. It states also that trade unions in Britain have no legal rights. I am trying to think of the many other things that the booklet said, and I wish that I had that document with me—[Laughter.] Conservative Members should not laugh, because the Government produced the booklet. Has the Secretary of State read it?

Mrs. Shephard: No, I have not—and it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman cannot quote from it accurately. I am sure that he is grateful that many jobs have been created in his constituency by inward investment.
Let us consider what is happening elsewhere in the world—for example, in Japan and Germany, for so long the acknowledged economic leaders of the industrialised world. As they struggle to emerge from recession, their economies remain sluggish. Last year, industrial output fell more in both Japan and Germany than in the United Kingdom. The German institutes—known more familiarly as the five wise men—predict no growth at all in the German economy in 1993. Recession continues in Sweden, Switzerland, and Finland. What of north America and the Pacific rim countries? They have shared the same problems.
Manufacturing jobs in the major economies have declined since the mid-1960s, and recent strains on the European monetary system and exchange rate mechanism show the seriousness of those economic problems in Europe. Every country in the ERM has been affected and nearly every currency, including the French franc. The Nordic countries, whose links to the ERM do not involve membership, have also been affected.
Last week in Brussels I chaired the Social Affairs Council, and I do have to say that the Opposition motion on the EC excels itself even for an Opposition motion, in being out of date, irrelevant, and wrong. For the very first time, employment Ministers of the Community spent time discussing the problems of people without jobs—and this entirely as a result of the United Kingdom presidency's employment resolution initiative. All the member states supported that initiative and the practical measures to help that it produced.
There is shared anxiety about unemployment across the EC—as well there might be, because in Spain and Ireland, unemployment is more than 17 per cent., in France unemployment among young people is 22 per cent. And even Germany now faces the prospect of rapidly rising unemployment—up by 54,000 in November alone.

Mr. David Alton: Does not the Secretary of State accept, in making her international comparisons, that, although the recession is deep and worldwide, other countries have responded differently? In Germany, for example, billions of deutschmarks have been invested in the coal mining industry to try to save jobs, and infrastructure investment is being made in many of the other countries that the right hon. Lady mentioned. Does


she not think that, in trying to find a way forward, it would be worthwhile looking at the responses made by other countries?

Mrs. Shephard: That is precisely what took place in the Social Affairs Council. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be interested to learn that this very day the Belgian employment Minister is in our country to learn how we cope with the unemployed.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras ignores the fact that other countries are affected as we are. In common with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras never loses an opportunity to talk Britain down. He ought to know that the United Kingdom cannot insulate itself from the effects of world slowdown, and he should support Government action to deal with those problems.
The hon. Gentleman, predictably, is entirely blind to those positive aspects of our economy that mean that we are ready to benefit from recovery, and are in a better shape than many of our competitors. He ignores those positive facts because Government policy has achieved them. Those achievements include the lowest interest rates in Europe; inflation under control and, at 3·6 per cent., at a level comparable to our major competitors and below the EC average; producer price inflation at its lowest since 1969; business taxation at the lowest in the G7 and EC countries; welcome signs of moderation in pay settlements—underlying earnings grew by 5·5 per cent. last year, the lowest for 25 years; unit costs well under control; retail sales continuing on a rising trend; new car sales in October rose by more than 8 per cent., and, total consumer spending rose in the second quarter of 1992 by 0·5 per cent.—the first increase since recession began; a competitive pound, which gives growing opportunities to exporters; rapidly improving productivity; and an improvement in productivity made possible by the removal of burdens previously placed on industry by Governments and trade unions.

Mr. Dennis Turner: Does the Secretary of State accept that the people whom I represent in the black country always seek to be positive and are very resilient? However, my constituency has an unemployment rate of more than 20 per cent., and more than one third of our young people are out of work. My constituency is currently experiencing the closure of another company—the Rolls-Royce of the gas cooker industry, which has been producing cookers for 175 years. That plant is under the threat of closure, yet it has made profits and produces a top-line product. It has done everything that the company could have asked of its work force. Can you, as Secretary of State for Employment,——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I personally cannot do anything. Earlier in this debate, after an intervention by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), I drew attention to interventions being so long that they amounted to speeches rather than questions. The same applies to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Turner: My sincere apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman obviously feels strongly about that key company in his constituency, but lower inflation and rising productivity must help his constituency, too. It is the framework that matters, not the extra burden that would—sadly, I must tell the hon. Gentleman—be imposed by a Labour Government, were one to be in power.
Most important of all, there has been an unparalleled improvement in the climate of industrial relations in this country. In the whole of last year, only 800,000 days were lost through strikes—the lowest figure for any calendar year since records began.

Mr. Terry Lewis: rose——

Mrs. Shephard: If the hon. Gentleman wants a different figure, I shall be glad to give him one. In the 1970s, when Labour was in power, 13 million working days were lost each year through industrial action. Even in 1989, at the peak of the economic cycle, the number was four times lower. When it comes to strikes, this Government's achievement is an improvement on the record not only of Labour Governments but also of the party of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) when it was last in power more than 100 years ago.

Mr. Lewis: The Secretary of State talks about creating the right conditions and industrial relations. SmithKline Beecham, in my constituency, is closing a factory that it claims was profitable, had good industrial relations, and was an excellent part of that group's enterprise. Because the conditions have not been properly provided by the Government, they are now closing the factory and moving that manufacturing base somewhere else. What can the right hon. Lady say to that work force, who fulfilled every demand made upon them by the company and by the Government? That factory is on an estate where unemployment among 18 to 25-year-old males is 26 per cent.

Mrs. Shephard: Companies such as the one described by the hon. Gentleman have to make commercial decisions, and presumably that is the reason for the decision that this company has made. But if that company were in the grip of industrial action, as it was when the hon. Gentleman's party was last in power, if business, commerce and industry were in the grip of the burdens on business that his party would impose upon it, millions more would be out of work.
Our deregulation policies have been a major factor behind the phenomenal growth of small firms. Between 1979 and 1989, their number increased to nearly 3 million. More than 1 million jobs were created between 1985 and 1989 by firms employing fewer than 20 people. And even in this time of economic difficulty many new businesses are starting. In 1991, there were more than 200,000 new value added tax registrations—a higher figure than that for most of the 1980s.
Despite recent rises in unemployment, the United Kingdom still has more people in work than any other country in the European Community except Denmark: 71 per cent. of the adult population are in employment, compared with just 65 per cent. in Germany and only 59 per cent. in France. What we need to maintain that is a flexible labour market, improved industrial relations and an economy structured to promote enterprise. These are the foundations of economic success.

Mr. Dobson: I hope that the right hon. Lady is not claiming some peculiar credit for this Government because there is a higher proportion of the population in the work force in Britain than anywhere else in Europe other than Denmark. That circumstance has prevailed as far back as records go, and certainly to the beginning of the 1960s. Surely she is not claiming credit for it.

Mrs. Shephard: That, of course, is because Denmark has never had to endure the kind of burdens that would be imposed if the Labour party were in government 
What we need for the recovery to take hold is confidence: we need confidence in business and confidence among consumers. Everything is in place except that one vital ingredient.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor recognised that when he set out the Government's economic strategy in his autumn statement. He stated clearly the aims of the Government.

Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Lady must have misunderstood my question. I asked whether she would confirm to the House that Britain's second place in participation in the work force, for which she was claiming credit, has existed as far back as records have been maintained and since long before this Government took office.

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman must keep trying. The House knows very well that the sort of measures that he and his colleagues would impose on industry, business and commerce in this country would increase unemployment by millions. I shall go on to show that.
The aims of the autumn statement were to restore confidence, restart economic growth and, above all, create new jobs. The strategy for achieving these aims is clear: low inflation, tight control of public spending, competition and a vigorous supply-side policy. These are the policies which delivered growth and job creation on an unprecedented scale in the 1980s, and they will do so again in the 1990s.
My right hon. Friend also introduced measures aimed directly at job creation—measures aimed at boosting confidence and strengthening recovery; measures rightly targeted on those sections worst hit by recession, in particular construction and the car industry.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Can the right hon. Lady tell the House when she expects unemployment to start to fall?

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that unemployment will begin to fall when the recovery begins, and the conditions for the recovery to begin are in place. What is needed is confidence, and confidence is boosted by the autumn statement.
Local authorities in England and Wales will be allowed to spend receipts from the sale of council houses. Priority will be given to spending on capital projects over pay increases for public sector workers. Some 20,000 empty houses will be taken off the market and all this should increase buoyancy in the housing market, create confidence and provide jobs. As one chief executive, Mr. Clive Thompson, has said:
It's pretty much what the doctor ordered-tight public expenditure and priority to capital expenditure.
Car tax is abolished and there are other measures for industry generally. First-year allowances for plant and

machinery are increased from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. There is a special initial allowance of 20 per cent. for industrial and agricultural buildings, which is important not just for manufacturing industry but also for rural areas, whose unemployment problems should not be overlooked.
We now have the prospect of a GATT deal. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has said that a successful Uruguay round agreement would boost world income by nearly $200 billion a year. That would add 1 per cent. to output in the European Community. The United Kingdom, with its record of improved competitiveness, is well placed to take advantage of a successful GATT deal. For exporters, whose prices are already highly competitive, the autumn statement measures have increased export credit cover. As business takes advantage of all these more favourable conditions, jobs will follow.
All forecasters now expect output to grow in 1993. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor predicts growth of around I per cent. Others, such as the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, are more optimistic and forecast growth at 2 per cent.
This is what some business leaders said after they heard the details of the autumn statement. Howard Davis, director general of the Confederation of British Industry, said:
These measures … will rebuild industry's confidence in itself and in the Government.
Sir David Lees, chairman of GKN and of the CBI economic affairs committee, said:
My response is very favourable. We needed a whole package of measures and that's what we got … it will help to restore confidence. The Chancellor has listened to what industry said to him.

Mr. David Winnick: I know that the right hon. Lady leads a very busy life, but does she take the opportunity to visit areas and communities in our country where unemployment is very high indeed? A high percentage of school leavers simply have no chance of finding a job and people in their middle age know that they are never likely to work again. Does she know about the deprivation, the poverty and the lack of hope in so many parts of our country, and does she not, as Secretary of State, feel ashamed that this is happening and that people take the view that there is no hope? That is the reason, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, why the extremists, the hate merchants, feel that they now have a fertile field to work in.

Mrs. Shephard: It is an insult to the vast majority of unemployed people to imply that criminal behaviour necessarily accompanies unemployment.
In direct answer to the hon. Gentleman's serious question, let me say that I spend a great deal of time visiting areas of the country where unemployment is high to see the success of the measures which we have in place to help young people, people in middle age, people who are facing redundancy. That is why I am delighted that I shall be announcing 1½ million places in training and employment schemes to help precisely the people mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
Business was pleased with the autumn statement. Nigel Whitaker, head of corporate affairs at the Kingfisher group, said:


It's good news for the consumer and should help build confidence … It's certainly good in the run up to Christmas
Neil Marshall, chief economist of the Retail Motor Industry Federation, said:
I think the whole package will have a very positive effect on both consumer and industrial confidence".
That is what business said, and business creates jobs; but we must face facts.

Mr. Richard Burden: Will the confidence that the Secretary of State perceives among business men be boosted or destroyed in my city, Birmingham? Since May, Birmingham has lost 2,500 jobs, many of them in manufacturing. Will the confidence to which the right hon. Lady has referred be increased or undermined by the Government's threat to withdraw assisted area status from the west midlands?

Mrs. Shephard: I regret that I cannot comment on other Department's plans in regard to assisted area status. I know, however, that people in the west midlands will also have welcomed the measures in the autumn statement—measures relating to cars, manufacturing allowances and help for exports. The west midlands is a particularly vibrant area, and I know that it will bounce back in the conditions that I have described.
Unemployed people now need the security of knowing that we are providing them with real and practical help. I began my speech by stressing the seriousness of unemployment, and the distress that it causes individuals. I am determined to ensure that unemployed people are given ever more effective help to find new jobs; that is why I have carried out a full-scale review of my Department's employment and training measures. I want to tell the House about the new package of measures that has resulted from that review.
Our package will provide a wider range of opportunities than ever before—a total of 1·5 million. It is targeted on helping the long-term unemployed, and those who need most help to get back to work. It will be effective, because it is based on practical experience of programmes with a proven record of success. It will represent the widest range of help that we have ever made available, and it will provide nearly half a million more opportunities in 1993–94 than in the current year.
We shall give priority to the measures that help people the most. We know that two thirds of those who become unemployed leave unemployment within six months. We shall focus on the people with the greatest need, and the measures that have already proved successful.

Mr. Ron Leighton: How much more money will be available for the scheme to provide half a million places?

Mrs. Shephard: My Department's resources have increased by 1 per cent. in real terms, rising to an extra £200 million.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Can the Secretary of State reassure the people of Birmingham that the new schemes will be more effective than Employment Training, under which only 17 per cent. of trainees have obtained jobs while 72 per cent. remain unemployed?

Mrs. Shephard: I shall deal with that point shortly. In the meantime, let me tell the hon. Lady that we have

changed the employment training scheme: we have introduced "training for work", a major new programme which will be dealt with by training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies. It will offer each individual what is right for him or her—skills training, temporary work opportunities or work preparation courses. TECs and LECs will have much more flexibility, and will be funded according to output—according to whether the courses end in people obtaining jobs or qualifications. The hon. Lady should be much encouraged and reassured by that news.
Job plan workshops, which give in-depth individual assessments to long-term unemployed people, build on the proven success of our restart courses and job review workshops. Restart has just been copied by the French: Socialist France is willing to learn from good practice as the British Labour party, apparently, is not. Job clubs improve the chances of obtaining a new job by 50 per cent., with an even higher rate of success for those who are unemployed for more than nine months. In the first six months of 1992–93, 36,600 people found jobs through the job interview guarantee scheme; many of them were long-term unemployed.
Because those two programmes are so successful, we shall be providing an extra 180,000 new places on them next year. Job review workshops, which help people to focus on the options open to them, will have an extra 10,000 places. About 60,000 career development loans, which are a major success story—seven out of 10 trainees obtain jobs after their training—will be made available to people both in and out of work over the next three years.

Ms. Angela Eagle: I do not think that people object to training, but surely the main problem is one of demand rather than supply. Might there not be some mismatch between skills and the jobs available? However well trained an individual may be, there are too few vacancies for that individual to be certain of securing a job when the training ends. Should we not look at demand for jobs, rather than simply at the supply of a work force?

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Lady has asked two questions in one. She mentioned the mismatch of skills and jobs; that is precisely why the responsibility for providing training lies with TECs and LECs, which are best placed to know about local demand for skills. I think that the hon. Lady should put her question about demand for jobs to the 1·4 million unemployed people who were placed in work by the employment service last year. It is the experience of the service that, with training and re-skilling and, perhaps, a willingness to travel, people have access to opportunities.
We are focusing our programmes—with their record of success—on those in greatest need: those who have been unemployed for six months or longer, and the groups of unemployed people who face particular disadvantages and need special help to find jobs. Examples are people with disabilities, people who are unemployed as a result of large-scale redundancies, ex-members of the armed forces, ex-detainees, people with literacy or numeracy problems and people returning to the labour market after an absence of two years or more. All those people will be able to join programmes as soon as they become unemployed. These are constructive measures, focused on individuals and their specific needs.
I am sorry to say that this is one of the great differences between the Government and the Opposition: the


Opposition talk about numbers, while we try to provide for individuals. Another major difference between us is that Labour dwells in the past, while we invest in the future. Look at our differing attitudes towards young people, for instance: Labour wants them to leave school at 16 and receive benefit, while we rejoice that nearly twice as many are staying on in full-time education or training as did so in 1979. They are staying on because our reforms—opposed by Labour at every turn—have given the country a comprehensive national curriculum and an effective examination system.
We also provide a first-class youth training programme, giving young people skills and qualifications to fit them for the world of today and tomorrow rather than of yesterday. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out earlier, in Britain alone among European countries every 16 and 17-year-old leaving full-time education without a job is guaranteed a two-year training place.

Mr. Dobson: No Labour Member wants young people to leave school or college and go on to benefit. We want young people to go into jobs. Let me remind the right hon. Lady again what happened to her when she left college in 1961, when unemployment was at 1·5 per cent., and what happened to me when I left college in 1962, when unemployment was at 2 per cent. Like other college and school leavers, we were given a choice of a wide variety of jobs, and we rejoiced in that choice. Labour wants to return to that position.

Mrs. Shephard: The Labour party does not want people to go into training, otherwise it would not have voted against it at every turn, encouraged by its pay masters in the trade unions.
Feeding on ill-informed rumours as Labour loves to do, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) wrongly claimed in the House on 20 November that 75,000 young people were waiting for a training place. When I was able to tell the House on 1 December that about 19,000 of this summer's school leavers had yet to take up a training place, I thought that he would welcome the news. Like all members of his party, he seems far too busy singing Britain's funeral dirge to listen to the truth.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Secretary of State claiming that 19,000 people falling through the guarantee is a success for the Government?

Mrs. Shephard: The point is that that 19,000 will have been offered a place by the end of this month. I should have thought that that might be something in which the hon. Gentleman would be interested, but he is not interested in the practicalities. He does not seem to understand that some young people want a place which is not immediately available, that some change their mind, and that they all come on to the register at the same time. He should be congratulating us on our achievement.
We see the future as one of partnership, not confrontation. Nowhere is that better demonstrated than in our creation of the nationwide network of training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies. TECs and LECs are well equipped to give positive and appropriate help to unemployed people in their particular parts of the country. TEC's are based on Conservative concern for the individual, using local expertise which best understands local needs and problems. There is no better

illustration of that than the swift response of the TECs in producing local action plans to deal with the results of possible colliery closures.
TECs and LECs succeed because they are a partnership in which Government and business come together. We know what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras thinks of business men; indeed, he has reiterated it today. I appeal to him to drop his anti-employer stance and to drop the imagery and attitude of the Bolsheviks. He and I know that he is not that old. For once in his life, could not he accept that co-operation achieves more than confrontation?
The clearest evidence that the Opposition are stuck in their past is their attitude to the European social charter and everything that flows from it.

Mr. Jimmy Boyce: rose——

Mrs. Shephard: I must make some progress.
The Opposition have given unqualified and unthinking support to each and every proposal from Brussels, however half baked, however irrelevant to the needs of a modern economy and however damaging to jobs. I have news for the hon. Gentleman: he might like to listen to what I have to say as he should find it interesting.
At last week's meeting of the Social Affairs Council, the employment Ministers of Europe agreed that the most urgent task facing them was to take effective steps to help unemployed people get back to work. The Council did not adopt any new directives which would raise the costs of employment and hold back the creation of new jobs. Instead, it adopted unanimously a United Kingdom presidency resolution underlining the importance of increasing efficiency, supporting new businesses and avoiding the imposition of rigidities which would hold back the creation and development of employment.
The employment Ministers of the Community understand where the real priorities lie. Last week they showed a realism which was entirely missing—alas—from today's speech by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. The directives on part-time and temporary work, which we believe would be bad for Britain and for jobs, have not been discussed by the Social Affairs Council for two years.
There is still no agreement on the working time directive. We have always said that that directive is the most damaging of all the proposals under the Commission's social action programme. We have always opposed it resolutely for that reason, but it is now clear that other member states have substantial problems with it. Those problems are a sign of the difficulty of legislating on a European level on issues which have traditionally been dealt with in different ways in different member states, as we have always said. Such diversity of practice is something that the Opposition have not even begun to understand.
The truth is that in Europe, as elsewhere, the British Labour party is composed of yesterday's people pursuing yesterday's agenda.

Mr. Dobson: If the Government are so adamant that the working hours directive will not be passed, why have they taken powers to abolish the limit on working hours down the mines on the basis that it would be replaced by the working hours directive?

Mrs. Shephard: First, that is not so. Secondly, we have never made any secret of our dislike of the directive. We have always opposed it. Should there be any danger of its being introduced, we have also said that we should challenge it in the European Court. Nothing has changed in that respect, but what has changed is the fact that some of our partners in Europe are beginning to share our view. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has again proved that he is stuck in the past, and the same is true of his attitude and that of his colleagues to industrial relations.
Nothing has done more to attract foreign investment into this country than the transformation of industrial relations since 1979. Nothing could be more calculated to drive foreign investment away than a return to the trade union legislation which the Labour party put on the statute book when it was last in government.
Britain is now the most favoured country in Europe for investment by German, American and Japanese companies. In 1991, nearly 40 per cent. of all inward investment into the European Community from the United States and Japan came to this country. It is no wonder that Jacques Delors has described Britain as "a paradise for investment".
Trade union colleagues of the Labour party passed a motion at their congress in September 1991 describing Japanese investment in this country as "alien, perverse and undemocratic". I am glad that one of the sponsors of that disgraceful motion—the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union—has already eaten its words and last week concluded a single union deal with a Japanese company.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras did not see fit to congratulate the MSF on overturning its policy. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that the MSF sponsors only 12 Labour Members of Parliament. Clearly, they must now disown the Trades Union Congress's policy on inward investment. But what of the other 136 Labour Members of Parliament who are sponsored by other trade unions? Are we going to hear them speak out at last now that the MSF has broken ranks?
The thousands of people in this country who work for Nissan, Sony, Honda and all the other overseas investors which have created jobs for British people in the past 10 years utterly reject the philosophy of trade union leaders who say, "If we can't have jobs on our terms, we'd rather not have jobs at all". That was the philosophy which destroyed 1,000 jobs at Dundee because of a petty quarrel between two trade unions. Until the Opposition are prepared to stand tip against such behaviour by their trade union pay masters, their claim to be concerned about jobs will continue to lack all credibility.
Our policies are in sharp contrast to the job destruction policies of the Opposition. The Opposition claim to be concerned about unemployment, but let us spend a moment considering what that means. They claim to care deeply about young people, but what have they done? They have opposed all the Government's youth training programmes since 1979, declaring their passionate opposition to the youth training guarantee at their 1987 party conference.
The Opposition talk about the need for training, but since 1979 they have opposed every measure brought before the House to improve the skills and qualifications of our people.

Mr. Boyce: rose——

Mrs. Shephard: I shall take no more interventions.
The Opposition work closely with the trade unions, but they have to because so many of them, including all the shadow Cabinet, are sponsored by unions. May we assume that Labour Members of Parliament agreed with the TUC when, in September 1991, it voted to boycott Employment Action before the programme had even begun?
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) agreed with her sponsoring union—the Transport and General Workers Union—when it voted in July 1991 to boycott youth training, employment training and the TECs?
In the unlikely event of the Labour party ever being in power, what measures would it propose for training? Its standard answer to every problem is, "Tax it and regulate it." As an incentive to training at a time of high unemployment, the Labour party before the election proposed a jobs tax. Whereas we give people incentives to train, it proposes to put a levy on employers. Jobs are to be created by putting a tax on them.
Of course, I do not deny that some jobs would have been created. It would be interesting to hear whether the Labour party still adheres to that policy in the manifesto. There will be jobs for civil servants and accountants. Civil servants will be needed to administer the tax and accountants will be paid to avoid it.
For young people, worse would be in store. Young people would be allowed to work only if they had a training contract. Despite the demonstrable success of present policies—twice as many young people enter full—time education or training now as was the case in 1979—compulsion would again he the order of the day.
Our aim in employment protection legislation is to balance the rights of individuals against the needs of those who provide them with work. Too heavy legislative requirements will destroy job opportunities and damage the very people they are supposed to help—the most vulnerable in society.
Labour made its commitment to job destruction absolutely clear when the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, speaking in the House on 17 November, reaffirmed with a bit of coaxing his commitment to a statutory national minimum wage which would destroy the very jobs Labour claims to protect. How many jobs we do not know—possibly up to 2 million. Even the Fabian Society says 800,000. But that that policy will destroy jobs is not in doubt, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East so crisply confirmed.
Over the years, we have got used to the Labour party peddling these antiquated and destructive policies, although after the truly incredible television interview given by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) on Saturday evening, we wonder whether Labour has any policies, or whether it believes in any of the policies it claims to have.
I have to confess to added disappointment today. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras would make some contribution to the solution of our problems. I thought that he might have presented some new ideas about helping unemployed people. All we have heard is a web of inaccuracy and half-truths. His speech was shot through with class envy of the usual socialist kind, based on ever-increasing sums of public expenditure. That is the classic Labour solution.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State draw attention to any factual inaccuracy in what I have said today?

Mrs. Shephard: Almost every point that the hon. Gentleman made on this country's economic position was inaccurate. What a great opportunity the hon. Gentleman has missed. How sad his performance has been. I wanted to hear a lion roar. The hon. Gentleman has proved that he is really a mouse in sheep's clothing.
Despite the problems of world recession, despite the uncertainties in the European financial markets and despite the unhelpful and destructive attitude of the Labour party, the Government are determined to pursue our strategy for recovery.
I have set out that strategy to the House this afternoon—low inflation, tight public spending, competition and a vigorous supply-side policy. These are the policies, reinforced by spending on capital projects, which will lead to recovery, to growth and to the creation of real and lasting jobs. For we know, as our European partners do, that in the real world there are no quick fixes or easy options. They exist only in the mind of the Labour party.
While we work with business to bring Britain out of recession, we know that one of our first duties as a Government is to help those individuals and communities facing unemployment and redundancy. We will spare no effort to ensure that they receive the best and most effective help that we can provide. Unlike the Labour party, we believe in Britain and her people. That is why our policies deserve the support of the whole House tonight.

Dr. Lynne Jones: A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of presenting the prizes and certificates at my old school. In my day, it was a grammar school. It is now an excellent comprehensive school which produces with a comprehensive intake results as good as those in my day when there was a grammar school intake. When I presented the certificates and prizes to the young women who had left school, I started asking them what they were doing now. I soon gave up because so many of them sadly said that they were looking for a job.
When I left school in 1969, unemployment was 2 per cent. We did not worry about getting a job. We were concerned only about getting a job that we wanted. Sadly, that is no longer the case. Unemployment across the country is more than 10 per cent. and it has been rising every month for the past 30 months. Unemployment in this country has been rising twice as fast as in the rest of Europe in the past six months, during which we have held the presidency of the European Community.
Some 750,000 under-24s are unemployed, the highest figure ever recorded and twice as high as the national average. If ever there was an argument against the Government's case that employment protection and wages councils undermine employment, these figures are that argument, because it is young people whose rights were removed in 1986. They had their protection under the wages councils and their right to minimum wages removed. Yet their unemployment rates are twice those for other workers.
The studies quoted by the Government in parliamentary answers, far from backing their case that wages councils and minimum wages destroy jobs, show that the

increased ineffectiveness of the wages councils, as a result of there being fewer wages inspectors for example, has contributed to the decline in employment.
In July, the Secretary of State announced that there would be new measures to underwrite the youth training guarantee. We have been trying to get figures for the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who are waiting for a youth training place. Last week, the Secretary of State finally had to admit that 19,000 young people who left school last summer are still waiting for a youth training place. When they get a place, they are unlikely to be successful in getting work at the end of the process. I do not have the figures for youth training and I hope that, after her announcement last week, the Secretary of State will begin to give the figures month by month and district by district for those waiting for youth training places and for those who are successful in getting work. We should like to see those figures.
Only 9 per cent. of the 2,693 people leaving employment training in Birmingham got jobs and 72 per cent. remained unemployed. From an answer to a question I tabled last week, we learned that there are only half the number of job vacancies notified for the whole of Birmingham as there are unemployed people in my constituency. Selly Oak is not one of the Birmingham constituencies that suffer most from high unemployment, bad as it is at 17 per cent. for male unemployment.
We are not satisifed with the assurances that the Secretary of State has given today. The budget for the measures is 30 per cent. less than it was in 1987. Her assurances today are highly dubious. We look forward to seeing some improvement in the abysmal figures I have quoted.
In October 1990, John Major said——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt, but I point out that the hon. Lady referred to the Prime Minister as "John Major". That is not in order.

Dr. Jones: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In 1990, the Prime Minister said on taking office:
It will take time—it always does—to change the economy. It is like turning the Titanic round.
Some of us believe that the Titanic is well on its way to hitting the iceberg. However, there appears to have been a change of heart in the past month. After the Government's central policy, based on membership of the exchange rate mechanism floundered, the Government suddenly announced that they were turning the Titanic in a different direction. Last Thursday, the Prime Minister said that
The only way to create long-term sustainable jobs is to create the right policies"—
create the right policies? What has the Prime Minister been doing for the past two years?—
that produce long-term sustainable growth. That is precisely what we are putting in place."—[Official Report, 3 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 390.]
The Government have been in power for the past 13 years and we presume that the policies that they claim they are putting in place, which will lead to recovery, are those announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn statement.
However, when the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) asked the Secretary of State for Employment last week to make a statement about the employment prospects of the proposals in the autumn


statement, the right hon. Lady was evasive at first. When pressed about the precise number of jobs that would be created, she said:
Priority has been given to protecting programmes with significant employment implications."—[Official Report, 1 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 135.]
That is hardly about growth, creating employment and getting the economy off the rocks or the iceberg that we are sadly approaching.
Despite the best talking up of the green-shoots tendency by Conservative Members, the autumn statement will simply, it is hoped, prevent this country from moving from recession into slump. The autumn statement is not enough to create the long-term sustainable growth and reduction in unemployment that the Prime Minister talked about.
We should take a leaf from Japan's book. Japan already has a predicted growth rate of 1·8 per cent. this year. The Treasury does not believe in the green shoots that are to come from the autumn statement. The Treasury forecasts a rise in growth of only 0·75 per cent. in this country next year.
Japan's growth rate is already much higher than ours and it has 2·2 per cent. unemployment. However, the Japanese Government realise the danger of recession and they are planning to invest the equivalent of 60 billion ecu—more than the entire EC budget—in infrastructure and investment for the future. That is the kind of approach that we need in this country if we are to reduce unemployment.
My colleagues in local government in the west midlands have submitted a package of measures that they would like to see implemented in the west midlands. The package includes infrastructure projects and an agreement to go ahead with the midland metro; further derelict land grants; removal of toxic waste from canals; and a new station for Birmingham.
We are also aware that there is a dreadful problem of homelessness and bad housing in this country. The Institute of Housing and all respectable housing forecasters claim that we need at least 100,000 social housing units a year. However, there will be only 32,000 this year. There is surely scope for greater investment in housing. However, despite the talking up in the autumn statement, investment in housing is likely to be cut. In addition, programmes for housing associations, other than for buying up houses on the open market which we certainly welcome, are also to be cut.

Mr. Tim Smith: Does the hon. Lady agree with the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) that public spending next year should be higher titan £244·5 billion? If so, how should that be financed—by increased taxation or increased borrowing?

Dr. Jones: I agree that expenditure must be increased if we are to save expenditure in the long run. The Secretary of State for Employment has already told us the cost of unemployment. If we do not tackle the issue now, unemployment will continue to rise. We must invest in infrastructure and housing. However, if we need to increase taxation, let those who have benefited most from the Government's mismanagement—those who have seen their tax cut by 200 times that of ordinary people—make a contribution to help us get out of the recession.
There is a desperate need for greater investment in housing. However, the Government offer us more of the same. They give with one hand and take away with the other. They are withdrawing support to local government. About £200 million will be lost to local government in England—£35 million of that to my local authority in Birmingham. There will be more job losses as a result of that. There will be cuts in the urban development programme and the much-vaunted city challenge programme will be abandoned.
On 26 November, the president of the European investment bank said:
If asked we would increase the speed of financing for infrastructural projects. We are ready to do this.
While we have the presidency of the EC, surely we should take advantage of that offer. Later this week, I hope that we will talk with our European partners about getting Europe and this country back to work.
When the President of the Board of Trade was a Back Bencher in 1987 he said:
Government cannot pretend that it is not involved in decisions about the future of the key platforms of industry or that it is up to the companies alone to ensure that they are able to compete effectively in the managed marketplace of the world. There are industries such as the steel industry, the car industry and the air frame industry which cannot be allowed to fail if Britain is to remain an advanced economy. Ideally the Government should not own them, but it has an ultimate responsibility to determine if they have a role in the economy.
Last month, in response to a question from an hon. Member about whether he should do more to ensure that we diversify our high-tech industries, the President of the Board of Trade said:
Diversification will take place in British industry as a result of the entrepreneurial skills of industry managers, and no one else."—[Official Report, 4 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 269.]
Those industry managers do not agree with that.
I end by quoting Samuel Johnson:
We frequently fall into error and folly, not because the true principles of action are not known, but because for a time they are not remembered.
The President of the Board of Trade should remember his earlier words before it is too late.

Mr. James Couchman: In following the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), I want to refer to the point that she made in respect of the wages councils. In defence of the wages councils, she said that the reduced role of the wages councils over the past four or five years and the inadequate number of wages inspectors had led to the destruction of jobs. I simply do not believe that.
I am a rare animal in this place because I am an employer. No doubt, if the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was in the Chamber, he would deride the fact that I have two jobs. I still run a family company and I have run it through extremely difficult times more than once, but the present times are as bad as any I have known.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to say that confidence is desperately needed to rebuild all our businesses. I suspect that there will be a slow starting, but gradually accelerating, spiral upwards as the recession recedes and recovery begins. I look forward to that.
As an employer in a very low-tech business in a service industry—all the things that are derided by the folk on the Opposition Benches—I must tell the House that the


working time directive, minimum wages and the kind of social on-costs for labour envisaged by Opposition Members would not help me.
I was astonished by the cheek of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), but then I always am. I was also somewhat regretful that he did not give way to me, because I had a simple question for him. I was going to ask whether he would vote against the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) to bring Sunday trading back to the position under the Shops Act 1950. That would destroy thousands of part-time and full-time jobs for those who work on Sundays. The hon. Gentleman did not give way, and I shall not give way to enable him to answer my question. I shall wait until next time for him to tell us.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras talked about training. He said that the Labour party's great nostrum to solve our unemployment problem is training. I remember that the last effort of a Labour Government—it is not simply historic, but almost pre-historic—was the introduction of the youth opportunities programme. The programme was called YOPS for short. Some of my hon. Friends who remember that programme will agree that it was the ultimate cheap labour scheme.
The hon. Gentleman made much of manufacturing, as did many other Opposition Members. I regret the loss of our manufacturing base and many industries. My constituency in the Medway towns is much more like one of the northern industrial towns which depended largely on heavy engineering for their employment. But those days are gone, and heavy engineering has been replaced by different businesses. High-tech, light engineering and avionic businesses are the backbone of manufacturing in the Medway towns. Manufacturing is also carried out by companies such as CAV Lucas, which I visited not long ago. During that visit I understood for the first time exactly why manufacturing employment has gone to the wall. I was shown an all-dancing and singing machine which did 27 different things to metal. That means that 27 different jobs have been taken over by a machine which was manned by one minder. With three shifts a day, 78 manufacturing jobs have been lost. It is no surprise that our manufacturing employment base has declined if' that is typical of the sort of manufacturing on which we made our great days.
The hon. Gentleman talked about investment. as do other Labour Members. Most investment that goes into manufacturing industry today is aimed primarily at doing away with labour, not with creating it. Most investment does not create jobs; it does away with them. That is not surprising, because there is not an employer in the country who is not examining his labour costs to see whether he can reduce them.

Mr. Leighton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the country that has made the most investment in high technology is Japan, which has the lowest level of unemployment?

Mr. Couchman: I accept that entirely. It is something which we want to learn from the Japanese. That is why I welcome the settlement of three Japanese companies in my constituency.
I shall say something in a moment about inward investment. I think that we should take the remedies of the

hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras with a pinch of salt, because, unless he acknowledges what has happened to manufacturing industry, he acknowledges nothing.
If the 19th century was the British century and the 20th century was the American century, the 21st century will be the century of the Chinese and the Pacific rim. From my recent visits to the far east it seems that we should seek inward investment from companies in Japan, Taiwan, Korea and Hong Kong. We should welcome such companies. Those countries want to create a European base, and they have chosen the United Kingdom as the place in which to do so, for four good reasons. First, if they speak anything other than their own oriental languages, which we do not understand, they speak English. That is a powerful reason to come to the United Kingdom.
Secondly, such countries like our industrial relations. The successive employment measures that the Government have introduced since 1979 have provided good industrial relations in the United Kingdom. Thirdly, they like our corporate tax regime. The United Kingdom has the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe. Those countries like that very much—and who would not like it if he wanted to make a profit?
Fourthly, those countries like to settle in the United Kingdom for the reason that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned—we have not accepted the social on-costs of labour which are such a burden to German, French and Italian companies. It is the reason why we have not taken on the social chapter. I hope that we will never take on the social chapter, because it would be a powerful disincentive to come to the United Kingdom.
I want to refer to one successful industry—the pharmaceutical industry—and sound something of a gipsy's warning to the Secretary of State. Before doing so, I must declare an interest, because I advise a large pharmaceutical company in Kent. I draw the attention of the House to a recent statement of the Secretary of State for Health who suggested that she would curb the drugs budget once again by increasing the number of therapeutic categories that would be limited for prescription.
The pharmaceutical industry contributes £1·2 billion each year to the trade balance. It has research and development of £1·3 billion, which is 18 per cent. of the industry's turnover in the United Kingdom. The industry is immensely successful. It is another example of inward investment taking place in the United Kingdom because large American companies have chosen to do their European R and D for the pharmaceutical industry in this country. The American companies like the quality of our scientists. That is very important. We must cherish that quality, and we must do everything we can to build it up.
I am worried by the recent warning of the Secretary of State. I have already said that we will substantially damage confidence in the pharmaceutical industry if we take hasty, short-term measures to curb the drugs bill. I ask Ministers to examine the matter carefully before introducing such a restriction because there is huge over-capacity in pharmaceutical manufacturing in Europe. Once we pass 1 January and enter the single market, the pharmaceutical industry will take steps to rationalise manufacturing. Manufacturing gives us the trade surplus of £1·2 billion, and it employs many people. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take on board those words and will speak to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
We are unlikely to see a substantial return to the heavy engineering, low-tech, metal-bashing industries which made this country's manufacturing base during the 19th century. However, we shall need to cherish the new industries which come in through inward investment or are generated in the United Kingdom by our own entrepreneurs.
I accept everything that the Secretary of State said about the factors for recovery being in place. The only missing ingredient is confidence. Every step that the Secretary of State and other Ministers take should be designed to bolster confidence, not to do it down.

Mr. David Alton: The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) mentioned his desire to see the abolition of the wages councils. He suggested that the continuation of the councils would be an impediment to employment. He will not be surprised to know that I do not agree with him. Winston Churchill established the wages councils for a good reason—the protection which they offered employees.
The hon. Gentleman then referred to the Sunday Trading Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). I recall that it was also Winston Churchill who said that Sunday was the greatest British institution and, therefore, should be prized beyond all others. He recognised the importance of Sunday as a day of rest for workers and a time when people could be with their families. If additional shop work were made available, I for one should like to see it shared with those who are unemployed at present, rather than forcing many shop workers, against their wishes, to be employed on a Sunday.
I wish to take up two comments that the Secretary of State made. She talked a great deal about improved industrial relations. We are all happy that the days of wildcat strikes and secondary picketing are behind us. I supported the measures that the Government took in 1980 to stop secondary picketing and their introduction of the secret ballot. But the Secretary of State will agree that fear of unemployment is one of the reasons for the improvement in industrial relations.
In the longer term, rather than relying on fear we should encourage a climate based on co-operation and partnership—two words which the Secretary of State used in her speech. We should look to the German model of industrial partnership, co-operation and profit sharing—the three Rs of rights, representation and reward.
I took slight exception to the Secretary of State's suggestion that anyone who raised the plight of those who were out of work talked Britain down. She implied that there was a lack of patriotism in even daring to mention the number of people out of work. She said that we should be interested not in statistics and figures but in the individuals who lie behind them. No one in the Chamber would disagree with that. The figures reveal the scale and the effect of unemployment on the human personality and the families and communities in which they live.
Rather than trading remarks across the Chamber, I hope that we can build on the Secretary of State's suggestion this afternoon that we need real partnership and co-operation to tackle this curse of unemployment. It is disingenuous to suggest that any Opposition Member

who expresses concern about the unemployed talks Britain down. By all means, highlight success in the Department of Employment or in the country—everyone is happy to hear about success stories—but we should never forget those who are not so lucky.
Living in and representing a city such as Liverpool brings one face to face with the calamitous effect of long-term, institutionalised unemployment. This week the Liverpool Research Group in Macroeconomics, the accountants Ernst and Young and the Liverpool Daily Postpublished their biannual report on the prospects of our local economy.
The remarks made by Professor Patrick Minford conflict with some of the comments made by the Secretary of State today. He said:
the prospects for reviving employment on Merseyside are poor. Instead, what we are forecasting is a continuation of falling employment in virtually all sectors accompanied by a steady outflow of the labour force and population.
That is a depressing picture for those of us who have seen a massive decline in the numbers of people living and working in the Greater Liverpool area in the past 20 years. A nation of Dick Whittingtons has been created in which a policy of national mobility has sucked people away.

Ms. Angela Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a bit rich to hear strictures from Patrick Minford about our economic success, or lack of it, when he was one of the leading lights of the mad, fundamentalist economic movement known as monetarism which so afflicted the first part of the Conservative period in office? Does he agree that that ideological dogma has had a great deal to do with the persistently high rates of unemployment experienced by Liverpool, Wallasey and other parts of the country in the past decade?

Mr. Alton: The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) obviously missed the irony of my remarks. I quoted Professor Minford because the Government have consistently quoted him in the past 13 years in support of their monetarist approach. Instead of dragging out of the cupboard quotations from the Kingfisher group, as the Secretary of State did earlier, I thought that it would be interesting for the House to hear from someone who has been a supporter of the Government's policies in the past 13 years—the Government would not deny that—and is a well-known monetarist.
Professor Minford's forecast for the Merseyside economy does not bear out some of what the Secretary of State said. I hope that his forecasts and the soothsayers will be proved wrong. I do not want to talk down the prospects for recovery on Merseyside any more than I want to talk down the prospects for recovery in Britain, but we must listen to what people are saying and look at the reality of life in areas like Merseyside.
On Merseyside more than 17 per cent. of the people are unemployed. We have had the bleak news this week of further redundancies at Cammell Laird. I am sure that the hon. Members for Wallasey and for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) will speak further about those redundancies, if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The prognosis is not good for Merseyside and the Government's fatalistic and defeatist approach will be of little comfort to individuals, families and communities who face the curse of further unemployment and the possibility of literally 50 years on the dole.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Surely the reality is that the trade union barons have brought Liverpool almost to its knees. Has not their dogma, stupidity and irresponsibility over many years made it so difficult for Liverpool to attract inward investment?

Mr. Alton: I stand second to none—the hon. Member for Birkenhead would probably stand in my company—in saying that we have fought Militant and other extreme groups about which we have heard this afternoon. We have seen such groups trade on unemployment in Merseyside. However, it would be wrong to deduce that we have a workshy labour force or that people on Merseyside do not give as much value for money as the next people. That is not true. Many companies in Merseyside operate just as successfully as companies elsewhere. We now have one of the highest productivity records in the country.
One needs only to visit a place such as Liverpool Freeport to see business which is booming, with record profits and levels of trade last year. Where the trade unions work in partnership, they can be a positive force. So let us not be simply anti-trade union or anti-workers. We require a partnership such as the Secretary of State referred to earlier. Measures such as the abolition of the wages councils will not facilitate the creation of such a partnership.
In Liverpool, 40,000 people are without jobs. In the north-west region, 254,000 men and 75,000 women are without work. In our country, 2·8 million people languish on the dole queues. In October this year a further 24,000 British people joined the other 17 million Europeans who are currently unemployed.
Communities that have depended on traditional forms of work have fared especially badly. Shipbuilding and coal mining communities are simply the latest and most graphic examples of that. In such communities there is an acute sense of abandonment, desolation and hopelessness.
if we are without work, the issue is direct and immediate. It brings into question previous jobs, provision for the family, coping with old age, what to do each day, how to pay back loans and mortgages, what other people—including our marriage partners and children—will think of us and what the future holds. Other tragedies such as alcoholism, depression, marital breakdown, homelessness and even death are all associated with job loss. For young people, with no prospect of work, there is often bitterness, alienation and apathy.
I was especially worried by the way in which the plight of young unemployed people was casually brushed to one side this afternoon. Most of us know the truth of the old saying that the devil will always find mischief for idle hands. One only needs to see young people hanging around on street corners, with nothing to do and nowhere to go, to understand their plight. It is not an excuse for lawlessness or committing crimes and it is not the only reason for crime. However, there is a connection between the listlessness, frustration and boredom of being out of work and the one crime committed every two seconds and high levels of drug abuse—0·5 million people have taken Ecstasy and 100,000 are addicted to drugs generally. Being unemployed means having nothing to do, and that can rapidly come to mean having nothing to do with the rest of us.
Most of us view unemployment from the outside and we are frightened by it. It is a threat to affluence, status and

our place within the community. We are right to be frightened, because a substantial proportion of no-job families remain locked into poverty and worklessness. In Britain today 2 million children live in families afflicted by poverty; 30,000 families live in hostel accommodation; 150,000 16 to 19-year-olds experience homelessness. Frequently those are also the people without jobs.
What are we to do? I wish to mention three things—the sharing of jobs, new job creation and better training. First, we should abandon fatalism and defeatism, which suggest that nothing can be done. Markets can be reshaped and institutions can be restructed in ways which give a strong and positive value to employment.
In Liverpool, the city's coat of arms bears the mildly ironic Latin words,
Deus nobis haec otia fecit"—
God has provided for us this leisure. Instead of long-term and enforced leisure for 15 per cent. of our population—the figure is rising—we should devise ways in which to share the available work.
Some areas and families are job-rich, and others have no jobs. Many parents would willingly take a sabbatical away from their career to help to bring up their children or to care for a disabled person or an aged relative. They would do so if the tax and benefit systems recognised the value of such a commitment. That would free work for others and help to prevent the high costs of vandalism, crime, work failure, low educational achievement and statutory personal supervision, which so often stem from family breakdown.
Earlier retirement and sabbaticals for training or time out for further educational development also free work, while enhancing the quality of the work force. At present we have a crude system of work sharing. It is called unemployment—90 per cent. have a job and 10 per cent. have not. Surely we can do much better than that.
In Britain, we need to re-learn how to share, but we must also learn to create new work, and that is my second point. All around us tasks are waiting to be done. Surely it cannot be beyond our wit to find creative ways to harness the abilities and talents of hundreds of thousands of unemployed people. Energy conservation schemes make particular sense, since they can be targeted at low-income households as well as providing jobs.
Construction jobs represent a low inflationary way to put people into work and an investment in infrastructure, which is falling apart. Often our public services are a disgrace and in many areas the local environment is tacky and tatty. The condition of many people's homes is deplorable: 2·4 million public sector homes are in need of repairs of more than £1,000 each; 909,000 homes are unfit for human habitation; and 463,000 homes lack basic amenities. Work is waiting to be done and we are paying construction workers to remain idle on the dole. If construction workers lived together in communities and were easily identifiable as such, I am sure that the people of Cheltenham and elsewhere would have been on the streets marching in the same numbers that we saw when mining communities were faced with 30,000 redundancies. There is work waiting to be done and skilled people waiting to do it.
Anyone would think that it costs us nothing to keep people out of work. Apart from the social costs that I have mentioned, there are economic costs. This year it will cost more than £20 billion in benefits and in lost taxes, which would otherwise have been received by the Exchequer if


those people were in work. That is the cost of keeping people on the dole and it is a tremendous waste of national resources.
Someone asked how one would finance schemes to provide work. It is not merely a question of running up the public sector borrowing requirement, although goodness knows it is lower than in many of our competitor countries and there may be room for some additional borrowing to finance schemes. In addition, there should be a small increase in taxation to pay for them. Above all, the cost to the Exchequer of keeping people out of work is surely justification enough for translating those resources into creating jobs rather than keeping people unemployed.
In unpublished evidence to the Select Committee on Employment on 21 October, the Secretary of State suggested that the annual cost of keeping one person unemployed was about £9,000. The other side of that coin is that, in 1991, the average income generated by every extra 100,000 people in employment would have been about £1·7 billion. That figure might be an overestimate, because many unemployed people might not be able to get the most highly paid or productive jobs, but the implication of such a loss of revenue contributions holds good. Unemployment is not an efficient way to lubricate the economy.
Thirdly, in addition to sharing and the need to reallocate resources to job creation, we need to consider training and future employability. A dirigiste and often meritricious approach to education has left us with 25 per cent. of our work force—that is 6 million people—illiterate and innumerate. Our failure to educate properly leaves people unemployable. Only 35 per cent. of our 16 to 18-year-olds go into full-time education or training, compared with 79 per cent. in the United States and 66 per cent. in France. We also secure fewer graduates: 132 per 1,000 of 21-year-olds, compared with 236 in Japan, 230 in America and 202 in France.
As the Confederation of British Industry has urged, we must be more ambitious about increasing the number of graduates. The Secretary of State referred to the additional people who will join the training and enterprise councils. She said that places for about 1·5 million people would be found. It would be absurd not to welcome that, but as I told the Minister who will reply to the debate last week during Employment Question Time, not everyone receives a place on a TEC course. The real challenge for the TECs is what they do about people who have come straight from school and who are illiterate or innumerate. What will they do about disabled people on projects such as the Greenbank project which has lost its funding and which I mentioned to him last week?

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that part of the package that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has put together includes help for people suffering from problems of literacy and in-numeracy, which I agree is an element of some of the problems faced by the long-term unemployed.

Mr. Alton: I am glad to hear that and will give the package a fulsome welcome. Otherwise that group of people will become the long-term unemployed, for whom no one will be able to find places. It is all too easy for TECs

to take in the cream—people who leave school relatively well qualified. People who have no qualifications will be the challenge and I welcome the Minister's intervention.
Training, sharing and job creation are all the business of Government. Sadly, inflation has dominated the political debate and unemployment has been treated as a residual concern. Caring about both is not stirring oil and water. Any economic system that ignores its impact on people, idolises the market and elevates the cult of the individual is doomed to failure. Our failed economic system has left people unable to find jobs. Businesses have closed and inadequate funds have been made available for public expenditure. Community and family life are often in tatters. That is a long, bitter and unflattering record.
The emptiness and failure of present policies should serve to stimulate a long overdue change, and I am grateful to the official Opposition for providing us with the opportunity to mention such issues this afternoon and for enabling us to contribute to that debate.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) mentioned wages councils in his opening remarks. He may find himself on his own in supporting them. In an earlier debate I challenged the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on whether he would reintroduce them should—God forbid—there ever be a Labour Government. He chose not to respond to that question.

Ms. Joyce Quin: I am interested in the hon. Lady's remark, because she and her hon. Friend the Minister have misrepresented our views in that way on a few occasions. I hope that she will accept that there is a world of difference between a party which wants to abolish the wages councils, full stop, and one which wants an effective system of wage protection, which might include such councils or another system. The gulf between the two main parties on that issue is very wide.

Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Lady is entitled to her interpretation of the record of the House, but I commend her to re-read it. It was clear that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras refused to answer my intervention in the affirmative.
I should like to declare an interest as I am a director of Kidsons Impey, a firm of chartered accountants, and I am also an employer and so I hope that I can bring to the House a businesswoman's approach to employment and unemployment.
The motion on the Order Paper typifies the way in which Labour Members view the country today. At a time when all agree that we require confidence, it is couched in words which would not inspire confidence in anyone listening to the debate or watching from outside as a potential inward investor.
Labour Members always look at the bottle as being half empty. It is time that they discovered that it might be half full. I wish tonight to examine the matter from a constructive standpoint, looking at the bottle as being half full. For a start, let us examine some of the jobs that have been created, some of the work practices that are expanding employment opportunities and the positive steps that we have taken to support our businesses and industries.
No Government want high unemployment. In a democracy, the power to govern comes from the votes of the citizens, and an unhappy and unemployed citizen is far less likely to vote for a party which presided over his or her misery. And misery it is, for I have several friends who in the last year or so, through no fault of theirs, have become unemployed and unable to find work. They want support and ideas, but they do not want tea and sympathy. They want action, and that is what the Government have taken.
Governments do not directly create jobs, except in the public sector. The wealth-creating private sector creates jobs. Even so, Government must create the conditions in which the private sector can flourish. Those conditions must include low inflation, low interest rates, low unit wage costs, low taxation, good industrial relations and opportunities to reskill and retrain. That is the environment for growth that the Government have created, despite the recession, in which all the main world economies have hit rock bottom more or less at the same time.
Business is beginning to respond to those conditions, and I want the House to consider some of the good news stories of the past week. Today, Rover announced that it is calling in workers for the first time to work on a Sunday. That is being done in response to increasing orders for the Rover 800. DH L International, the courier company, has announced that it is planning to increase its work force by 23 per cent. QPL International, the microelectronics company, is creating 280 new jobs at INMOS, International Metal Oxide Semiconductors.
In the last week, the House of Commons Library has been tracking articles containing announcements of new jobs, and several thousand jobs are listed. They are appearing in the national press, revealing the intentions of industry and business, responding to the environment that the Government have created.
The small and medium-sized business sector does not get well reported and is often not properly identified, even though it comprises much of our business and creates jobs on a daily basis. The number of jobs created in the last week alone is a story that speaks for itself. Unfortunately, that story does not make the headlines. That is a crying shame because we need to demonstrate such results to restore confidence.
Opposition Members claim that we have squandered our European presidency. I strongly disagree. On 4 December, the employment Ministers unanimously adopted a resolution underlining the importance of increasing efficiency and the need to support new businesses. Under the British presidency, we have started to move the Community away from rigid directives that would strangle business and growth.
The social chapter and the working time directive are examples of this. What would Labour Members tell the shift workers at Alcan in my constituency who have arrived at an arrangement with management to work 12-hour shifts Monday to Thursday so that they can have Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays with their families? That arrangement suits the workers and the management. Would Labour Members tell them that the working time directive would not allow them to work those hours, so that they would not have an improved quality of life and time with their families?
Europe is starting to take a lead from the United Kingdom. They are looking with interest at a country which, except for Denmark, has the highest proportion of

its adult population in employment, has one of the lowest unemployment rates for the under 25s and has working conditions that have attracted the largest proportion of inward investment from countries outside the Community. In difficult economic circumstances, we are making great strides, and business and industry are pressing ahead, particularly in their flexible working arrangements, which are being adopted to reflect the changing needs of the working population.
Since 1979, many changes in working patterns have taken place. As of June of this year, compared with June 1979, there had been a 65 per cent. increase in male part-time employment and a 20 per cent. increase in female part-time employment. Adopting changes such as job sharing have made that possible, and job sharing is now practised widely, notably and successfully in the House of Commons Library, which provided the statistics that I am using.
Industry has been quick to grasp other ideas that have made employment fit more aptly the needs of people who are concerned with the quality of their lives. Flexitime, home working, the provision of creches and working on Sundays are now options available to many who work.
Sadly, there are no jobs for life. We need look only at Japan—several hon. Members have referred to the situation there—which prided itself on a system supposed to guarantee work until retirement. The economic slowdown revealed that utopia for what it was—social engineering that fell at the first hurdle in a recession. Perhaps Japan will begin to look more closely at the United Kingdom working environment, in which self-employment has risen by 58 per cent. since 1979.
Sanyo Electric, which is planning to reduce its work force in Japan by over 2,000, is offering early retirement to employees over 50, saying that that will enable them to start something different before it is too late. Society in Japan is changing, and it is clearly changing towards our pattern. So perhaps in the way in which we learnt some of the good points of Japanese business, they will benefit from our good employment practices.
Having told the House of some of the new jobs that have been announced and some of our work practices, I move on to some of the positive steps that the Government are taking. The autumn statement was a milestone, carefully targeting areas of weakness in the economy. It was designed to boost employment and help the unemployed back to work. We have already heard in the debate of many favourable responses to the autumn statement.
Our withdrawal from the ERM, no matter what one's view, gave us the opportunity to reduce interest rates. That has been of direct benefit to the employment-creating sector of the economy—the private sector.

Ms. Eagle: Did the hon. Lady agree with the Government's policy to join the ERM in the first instance, even though interest rates thereafter increased dramatically? She is now praising the fact that we were forced out of the ERM.

Mrs. Gillan: We are discussing employment—a subject that is supposed to be close to the hearts of Labour Members—not Europe. I would be happy to debate European matters with the hon. Lady on another occasion.
No matter what one thinks about our withdrawal from the ERM, it gave us an opportunity to reduce interest rates. The businesses with which I deal have appreciated that reduction, which has helped them at a time of recession.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has been working hard at the Department of Trade and Industry and his announcement about one-stop shops was designed to help small and medium-sized businesses, which are so important in job creation.

Mr. David Hanson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gillan: No, I have given way enough.
In her opening speech my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave many examples from her Department, which the Opposition may notice is called the Department of Employment, not the "Department of Unemployment". Those benefits and measures add up to significant Government action to encourage the economy and our businesses and industries.
The economic report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in the United Kingdom in 1991 described the Department of Employment's activities and reforms, such as deregularisation, privatisation and the reform of employment law, as "impressive" and said that they had helped to reverse the United Kingdom's relative economic decline.
The Government's formula for business will put people back to work and their policies will create an environment for success. We believe that a partnership between Government and business will create real jobs. It is now up to business to build on and add to that framework. Unlike the Opposition, we are backing British jobs and business. There is no sign of leadership, business acumen, reality or confidence-giving from the Opposition.
My right hon. Friend described the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras as a mouse in sheep's clothing, but I must admit that he has surpassed himself in size by following dinosaur policies that are outmoded and outrageous and, thankfully for business, industry and jobs, he is out of power.

Mr. Frank Field: I shall not follow in detail the speeches of the four speakers who preceded me, but I wish to pick up themes from their speeches.
The Secretary of State is not only a good but also a highly intelligent person. I want her to imagine what it would be like for somebody who had been asleep for 30 years to wake up and listen to her speech. Would that person recognise the country as we see it or would he think that her speech was relevant to a Britain of 30 years ago? We thank her for most of the measures that she announced in her speech, such as job clubs. Although they are all important, they are totally inadequate as a strategy for dealing with the ever-growing number of people captured by unemployment.
The Secretary Of State gave it away at the beginning of her contribution by talking about the "distress" of unemployment as though it were like suffering from a heavy cold. Unemployment is not merely distressful. There is an anger and despair felt by a large number of our

constituents. They feel a hopelessness about the situation and we must continue to represent that feeling in this debate. It is crucial that that is the cornerstone of building a policy to move this country back to full employment.
The motion mentions the high level of redundancies, so I wish to discuss the issue of Cammell Laird. As the House knows, last week the owners of Cammell Laird threw in the towel. They threw up their hands in despair and said that they could see no alternative for our yard but closure. I had a brief opportunity to tell the House then that the workers and the people of Merseyside would not accept that scenario because unemployment is already too high in our area. In my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) the official unemployment rate is 14 per cent. The grandparents, parents and offspring of some of the families whom we represent are currently unemployed. Our newspapers carry reports of whole streets in our area in which not one person is at work.
To be told that the owners of Cammell Laird intend to destroy the livelihood and skills centre in Merseyside is not acceptable to us because we have seen what the future is like if there is no work. We are not merely holding out a begging bowl. Cammell Laird is a priceless asset of this country. Its closure should be not simply a local issue but a national one if we are to survive as a great trading nation. We shall therefore fight against its closure. It will be a national fight and we shall not simply sit idly by or make speeches in this House about the criminal loss of skills and the skills centre. I hope that the country will support us in our fight because we know that, without such a skills centre, Merseyside has no future. If Merseyside is closed skills centre by skills centre, the same future will envelop the whole nation.
The fight goes well beyond Birkenhead and beyond the Merseyside borders, because it concerns the country's manufacturing base. If we are to say that some of the most highly skilled and precious members of the work force can be discarded because the employers are at the end of their wits, and do not know what to do, it is a grim scenario not just for us but for the nation.
For those reasons, I am happy to spell out in more detail why we shall not accept that closure and why the Government should not stand idly by and accept what Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. has handed down as a death sentence to Cammell Laird. The Government are closely involved in the position that has been reached and with the future of the workers in Merseyside. The fact that the Government sold that taxpayers' asset for £1 excites local constituents more than anything else. How could something so valuable have been valued in that way and now be so easily discarded by those whom the Government trusted with ownership?
The Government are VSEL's only supplier, so they have an enormous interest in its behaviour. As we now know—it will become known because we intend to repeat it—they hold a golden share in VSEL. At this stage, we are asking the Government not actively to intervene but to keep an active watching brief. Our first and crucial fight is to wrestle away from VSEL the title deeds and dowry to that yard so that we can go our own way. When that task is complete, we shall look to the Government for practical and positive help. It will not be on the scale of the intervention of the 1960s. We know that if we are to survive we must play a part in mapping out the sort of


positive employment policies that the Government must pursue if they are to beat back the rising tide of unemployment.
I am happy to note that the Secretary of Slate for Employment has returned to the Front Bench, for which I am grateful to her. I am now able to say to her that I hope that we have heard for the last time the sort of speech that she gave today. Every one of the measures that she mentioned was proper and important, but her speech did not match the urgency felt by the millions of people in this country who are today drowning in a sea of unemployment. Our task today is partly to convince the Secretary of State of that.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on being brave enough to talk about full employment and placing that once again on the agenda. I have some ideas to pass on to my hon. Friend to use in his fight in the party. It is noticeable—I shall say this before anyone else does—that full employment is not mentioned in our motion. If policies for full employment are not contained in the Labour party manifesto at the next election, the Labour party will face its fifth election defeat, and deservedly so. When my hon. Friend fights his corner in the shadow Cabinet, I hope that he will take back this message with the urgency that we shall deploy in today's debate to show the importance of having both the political and intellectual courage to begin a debate on full employment.
The issue of the wasted opportunity of our presidency of the European Community has been raised, but our presidency is not yet over. The summit at Edinburgh has yet to take place and it is not impossible for the British Government to start to give a lead in showing what is necessary if we are to return to full employment. We cannot have full employment in one country; we must have full employment in surrounding countries, too. To achieve that, we must acknowledge the power structure in Europe.
Given that the Government are usually realistic about power politics, I am surprised that they seem unable to acknowledge the power structure in Europe. Both Front-Bench teams wish to link this country to a Europe dominated by a super-power. Ever since men and women have formed tribes, let alone nation states, no tribe or nation state has willingly surrendered sovereignty to weaker groups around it. The starting point for our policies must be the power-house that Germany represents in Europe.
We should give up our extraordinary attempts to blame the Bundesbank for defending German interests—it would be surprising if it did not. We must accept that policy in Europe must be shaped by acknowledging Germany's power structure in the Community. Therefore, if we were seriously thinking about the importance of the German economy and of the Bundesbank reducing interest rates, the autumn statement would have broken ground and talked about the autumn statement for Europe. It would have mentioned, not merely public investment here, but what could be done by the Community to promote European investment into former East Germany. If we could lower the burden that is falling on former West Germany, we could restart the motor force in Germany, reduce interest rates in the Bundesbank and benefit from the results.
One idea to take to Edinburgh at the weekend is that the British Prime Minister can provide leadership, and we

can begin to think about forming a full employment policy in Europe. However, in order to do so we must start by considering the power structure in Europe—centred around Germany.
Another idea that we could take to the summit would be to look at the markets beyond Germany—those countries that have traditionally bought from this country—and press for a Marshall aid plan for central Europe and beyond, not just on humanitarian grounds, although it is important enough to ensure that people do not starve, but to ensure that those countries have enough money to buy goods. They will use that money to buy from markets from which they have traditionally bought—this country and western Europe. We can provide leadership to the western world on the scope of the Marshall aid plan for central Europe and beyond.
We should not stand on our dignity but try to learn from what other countries and their constituent parts are doing to try to achieve full employment. In another debate in the House last week I was able to mention that German trade unions are not discussing a wage or salary freeze, but have something much more important on the agenda. They are beginning to discuss, both among themselves and with German employers, what the employers' response would be if the unions held back on wage increases and productivity increases were used, not to bring wage increases, but to expand the job base. That is an important idea which should commend itself to us, particularly given its source—a German trade union movement that is keen on success.
We could give to Europe an idea that worked well in the 1930s in this country. When the then Government felt that unemployment was almost overwhelming the country, they said that they were prepared to go back to the drawing board, and they asked for ideas about how to return to full employment. They set up the Economic Advisory Committee so that those with ideas could advance them for use in the Government's scheme and the public debate.
We learnt yesterday that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a small group of economists who are to advise him on whether his predictions for growth are right. I hope that the Government will build on that modest proposal, admit that the challenge is defeating them and that they are prepared to open their doors to reasonable discussion as they are anxious to learn. I hope that the Government will admit that the old ideas that they thought acted as their map and compass as they went about daily life can no longer be used as their means of steerage. They need a new language to encapsulate the new ideas if they are to achieve full employment.

Mr. Ralph Howell: The hon. Gentleman talked about new ideas and I agree with much of what he has said. However, I disagree with him when he talks about full employment. He seems to suggest that if we have better management—whether by one party or another—we can achieve full employment, but that is not on. We need a fundamental rethink greater than the one we had when Beveridge introduced his report 50 years ago. Would the hon. Gentleman support the idea of establishing the right to work? Until we get down to that, there is no way that we can achieve the full employment of which he talks.

Mr. Field: Labour Members used to introduce a right-to-work Bill every year. Therefore, I have no


difficulty in accepting the hon. Gentleman's argument. The other issue that he raised reflected the tenor of my speech. If we are to return full employment to the agenda, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that the Labour party should, we must not allow ourselves to be laughed out of court by people stating that it was a fluke of history in the 1940s and 1950s. We must think new thoughts in order to achieve our objective. The debate will be difficult and tortuous, and people will accuse us of disloyalty and misrepresent what we say, but unless we start that debate—and do so in the Chamber—we shall misrepresent the views of the growing number of unemployed people outside the House. It is their views that we should bring to today's debate.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I apologise for missing the opening moments of the hon. Gentleman's speech. Before talking about the Bundesbank looking after its own interests, he said that the first task was to wrest from VSEL the title deeds to the yard. I appreciate the importance of the Cammell Laird shipyard to his constituency and to the north-west, but surely VSEL owes a duty not only to its shareholders but to its other employees based at Barrow? I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can expect Laird to ignore the £20 million of liabilities that it incurred along with the purchase of the yard for a nominal sum of £1 and to present that as a dowry to his constituents, given these other responsibilities. It is important to the economy of the north-west that the great skills of the work force at Cammell Laird be used to the benefit of the whole economy, but I find it difficult to see how the hon. Gentleman can expect the shareholders and other employees of VSEL to make this sort of sacrifice just for his constituents.

Mr. Field: The House has been tolerant and has allowed me a great deal of time to develop my ideas, but it would take me just as long again to answer the hon. Gentleman's points. All I can say is that, if he wants answers, he had better watch this space. Answers will be given to his important points—they will not be brushed under the carpet.
I repeat the sheer folly of our believing that we can sit idly by while a death sentence is handed down to one of our most important skill centres. Of course there are balances to be struck, and VSEL has certain duties. The Members who represent the constituencies in question have to push those matters; they are not my responsibility.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I always listen carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speeches or read them when I have the opportunity. He is held in high regard on both sides of the House, but I must tell him, not in a carping way, that, having listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and the speech by him, I have not heard a single proposal on how full employment might be achieved. All we have heard are calls for debates and for listening to people. We should like to hear the specific actions that the hon. Gentleman wants the Government to take. He will find an audience which is more than willing to consider positive proposals.

Mr. Field: I almost despair of my ability to put a message across clearly. I have said that we have to think in a European context; we cannot think of Britain as an

island unto itself—at least, when it comes to employment policies. I have also said that it is crucial that the Government have the European canvas on which to paint during their presidency. That presidency is not yet at an end.
I have also put forward two proposals which would give us, if not magically full employment, then the building blocks to begin the process of reaching full employment. The first point was that, given the transitional problems that Germany has gone through since unification, it will naturally put its own economic interests before the wider economic interests of Europe. Secondly, I argued that since Germany is such a powerful and dominant economy in Europe, it is in our interest that it should make the transition successfully. I said, thirdly, that it would have been sensible, to move Europe back to full employment, if we had spent the past six months thinking of measures to help the German economy make the transition. The resources of a wider Europe might have been deployed to that end. Just discussing such measures might have brought about a different attitude on the part of the German Government and Bundesbank.
I also spoke about what used to be our big markets in central Europe—they are now largely drying up for lack of finance. I proposed thinking about a Marshall aid plan on as imaginative a scale as the Americans offered western Europe after the second world war. I said that we should bring in such a plan for humanitarian reasons and for sound economic reasons.
In what I had hoped would be a 10-minute contribution I have not managed to set the world to rights or been able to tell the House all the necessary policy measures to move us back to full employment, but I did want to register the point that this is the first time I have ever heard our Front-Bench spokesmen use the phrase "full employment" to signify one of our objectives. I do not mean to downgrade what my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, but it is easier to say the phrase than to work out policies to achieve it. That is what we must now do.
It would be a mockery if the hon. Member for Birkenhead, speaking about the need to return to full employment, did not end on the note where he began—the possible destruction of yet more jobs at Cammell Laird. I hope that I have convinced the House and others who may be listening outside it that we are utterly serious in our campaign to get the title deeds back and to find the money to ensure that Laird has a future until such time as this House takes a more relaxed view of debates on returning to full employment.

Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) spoke with characteristic passion about the plight of his constituents who are to be made redundant by Cammell Laird. It is natural in such circumstances to look for political solutions. I know nothing about the title deeds or the other details, but the hon. Gentleman also talked about wider issues, including economic policy in a European context. He seemed to suggest that we might have done more to help the Germans through a difficult transitional period. My guess is that most British voters would probably feel that they had already done enough, given the high interest rates that we have had to put up with for the past couple of years,


largely as a result of German reunification. Those rates were not anticipated by those of us who supported Britain's entry into the exchange rate mechanism in October 1990, but they became painfully more clear as the months passed.
It is tempting to assume that there must be some kind of a political solution, and politicians themselves are occasionally guilty of giving voters the impression that there must be some kind of political solution. But huge changes have been taking place for several years in European economies, and my guess is that the change at Cammell Laird is one of those. I know nothing about the yard's order books, but I do know that if a business runs out of orders it does not matter how much finance is put into it: if it cannot generate sales or orders, in the end it is not a viable business. People would be better off accepting that fact and not despairing. They should look at the examples provided by the areas of Britain which have been through this trauma before.
My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) has been a constant advocate of the interests of Corby town, which went through the same sort of trauma because it depended heavily on the steel industry. Today it has diversified into many other industries, and I see no reason why Merseyside should not do the same. I know that there is a feeling that Members who represent southern constituencies do not understand the problems of Merseyside, but six or seven years ago I visited Merseyside at the invitation of its churches to see for myself. I have also been there many other times because when I worked in industry I travelled all over the country. Once I even got up at 7 am to address a group of dockers on the options available to them under the Social Security Act 1975. They asked me, "Why are you coming here, guy? You're the bloke who's supposed to know about pensions." We were consulting the work force as we were required to by the legislation.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate the difference between this and previous recessions? It is not that smoke-stack industries are being wiped out; highly skilled jobs which are an integral part of a successful economy are being lost. I recently spoke in the House about similar job losses in British Nuclear Fuels Limited, where some of the most skilled engineers in the north-west have lost their jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has mentioned a similar group. Recently I made a speech about Shell workers. All these workers hold highly skilled jobs, and the comparison with Corby no longer holds good.

Mr. Smith: My impression was that those working in the steel industry at Corby were also highly skilled people and the sad fact is that, however much training we may have, if there is no demand for those skills we have to consider ways in which we can adapt. That is a harsh fact, but because of the pace of economic change there may be a need to persuade people of the need to change in mid career. That is not easy to do. I am the first to accept that but it is the current situation. I mentioned Corby as one example but there are many other examples. South Wales is an area highly dependent on industries such as steel and coal. Today, through the successes of the Government in

attracting inward investment, the area has diversified hugely to the point where it has lower unemployment than Greater London.

Mr. Llew Smith: Will the hon. Member comment on the report recently published by the University of Wales which commented on Government plans to regenerate south Wales, particularly the valleys initiative? That report came to the conclusion that it was little more than a publicity stunt and that not one penny of new money could be found. We who live and work in such communities know that the jobs attracted did not replace those in coal and steel but were very often low paid, part time and almost inevitably non-union. Has the hon. Member read that report and, if so, will he comment on it?

Mr. Tim Smith: No. I have not read the report to which the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) refers, but I stick to my assertion that unemployment in Wales is now lower than it is in Greater London and that Wales and the Welsh Development Agency have been successful in attracting inward investment.

Mr. Frank Field: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the form of intervention we have seen in Wales is the type of interventionist policy that should be seen in the rest of the country?

Mr. Smith: There may be a case for that kind of intervention elsewhere. The Welsh Development Agency and the Scottish Development Agency have both been successes and if other regions would benefit from that kind of policy I would certainly support that.
I want to make some comments about the European scene. We have heard much about the need to have some kind of integrated European policy but at present, far from the economies of Europe coming together, they are diverging in the way that they are developing and it is noteworthy that at present the German economy, which is often held up in this House as a great example of success, is moving into recession and German manufacturing industry finds itself in a very difficult position because it is not easy for employers to make the adjustments—the reductions in their labour force—which they may need to make. They are saddled with very high industrial costs. The result of this is striking because motor manufacturers in Germany are now looking outside that country to obtain their components. One of the most important side effects of Japanese inward investment in this country is that not only have the Japanese brought new standards of management and higher productivity to the companies in which they have invested, but they have insisted on much higher standards from their suppliers. We now see companies like Turner and Newall and GKN reaching new standards of quality.
There was a story in the Financial Times in October which said:
Mercedes Benz, the German car manufacturer, says sterling is undervalued and the British economy underrated. The company nearly trebled its purchases of UK-produced motor components last year and expects them to grow further. Two other German companies, BMW and the Volkswagen/Audi group—now embracing SEAT of Spain and Skoda of Czechoslovakia—are also expanding their purchasing of components made in the UK and say they, too, expect further growth. All three say this growth would take place even without the devaluation of sterling following its withdrawal from the European exchange rate mechanism last month".


This is a remarkable transformation for the British motoring industry, and for the British motor components industry, and if we continue with this record of success we shall find, for the first time for many years, that in 1995 we shall have a positive balance of trade in motor cars and motor components.
There are other reasons why investors now see this as a more secure and more stable environment.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) talked about the rise of extremist parties and referred to Spain, Italy, Germany and France but notably, he did not refer to the United Kingdom. The simple reason is that we have policies designed to ensure that we have good community relations—as we have—because we have had tough immigration policies for many years. I do not think the picture that has been painted by some hon. Members is as gloomy as some would suggest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said that this was not a one-way street. Many jobs are being lost but at the same time many jobs are being created and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the remarkable story that appeared last week about the MSF. That union has done a double U-turn and has not just signed with a Japanese company but signed a no-strike agreement with a Japanese company and both those policies were anathema to MSF only 12 months ago. The good thing is that its decisions will lead to the creation of 400 new jobs in Mansfield in Nottinghamshire and I am sure that the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) will welcome that, as will other hon. Members.
It is good news because it is inward investment and it is coming from Japan, Germany and the United States. I would like the very welcome policies set out in the autumn statement reinforced by a further assertion of the importance of manufacturing to the United Kingdom because if I have one regret about the 1980s it is that the impression somehow got around—I am not sure who was responsible and there is not much point in pointing the finger in a particular direction—that manufacturing was unimportant. We should make it clear that that is not our view; that manufacturing is important, and that we welcome the establishment by the Confederation of British Industry of the National Manufacturing Council; that we hope that the Government will look very carefully at the recommendations addressed to them—only a third of the recommendations are, since many are addressed to manufacturers or the City.
I would like to see the appointment of a Minister for manufacturing industry to make clear that the Government are totally committed. The CBI report underlines the importance of manufacturing. Although the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that there were 4·5 million people in manufacturing, the report suggests that the figure is 5 million and that another 5 million are dependent on manufacturing. It is important to this country. It is still a great trading nation and manufactures are largely traded. We have had some remarkable successes over the 1980s, with 50 per cent. of consumer spending being on manufactured goods and 70 per cent. of exports being manufactured, while £7 billion of corporation tax is paid by manufacturing industry.
The record over the past 10 years has been remarkable because productivity in manufacturing has risen by 58 per cent. and, contrary to what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras asserted, that Britain's share of world trade is continuing to fall, according to the CBI, the United Kingdom's share of main manufacturing countries' exports has risen from a low of 7·6 per cent. in 1985 to 8·7 per cent. in 1991. There is a good story to tell on manufacturing exports. Even throughout the recession exports have continued to grow and manufacturing productivity, according to the CBI report, even over the past 12 months, has grown at twice the speed at which it has grown in Germany. There is a great deal of catching up to do and that is why it is important to place a new emphasis on the importance of manufacturing.
If we do, we shall see a resurgence of economic activity in manufacturing and a growth in jobs—which is what everyone wants. There is a new emphasis on growth. The hon. Member for Birkenhead wants full employment. We shall achieve that only if we have an industry that is competitive and has high productivity. Ironically, sometimes that will mean the loss of jobs, as companies invest and displace jobs—but it is the only way. There will then be more jobs in the service industries that depend on manufacturing. We will create full employment by having low interest rates, low inflation, and high productivity. That is what I would like to see, and I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Members support that.

7 pm

Mr. Ron Leighton: We hear every day of hundreds or thousands of new redundancies. The whole country is submerged under a tidal wave of unemployment. The Government do not have a clue what to do, and neither do they care. That was graphically shown recently when Ministers blithely and abruptly announced the colliery closures to the House. An extra 100,000 people were to lose their jobs without any consultation, even with the Department of Employment. The Government apparently proposed to blight the lives of 100,000 people and to throw them on the scrap heap, at a time of multi-million unemployment on a rising trend. The Government's solution was to pour petrol on the flames.
The Government seemed surprised that the vast majority of the British public recoiled, were shocked by, and protested at that decision. Perhaps that is explained by the fact that the Conservatives have been in office for so long that they think that they can do anything they like.
We now have close on 3 million unemployed claimants. Horrendous and scandalous though that figure is, it is a gross understatement. The statistics have been massaged and fiddled, and on a 1979 basis the figure is more like 4 million. A Department of Employment press release issued on 12 November recorded an increase of 391,000 claimants over the previous 12 months, but a 658,000 decrease in the employed work force. Therefore, hundreds of thousands of those thrown out of work do not show up in the official statistics—and many of them are women.
It is self-evident that we can never have a good and decent society that is at ease with itself, and a country that functions properly, with mass unemployment. We will never have a proper welfare state with mass unemployment, because we could not afford one. The cost of the dole queue is ruining public finances. Each unemployed person costs the Exchequer about £9,000. At a time when


the Government's revenue is being slashed by the recession, they will soon have to pay about £30 billion to finance unemployment. That is why they are borrowing tens of billions of pounds every year—not to invest, but to pour down the black hole of unemployment.
A good society and a country at ease with itself is one in which everyone who wants to work can work and is properly paid for doing so. Why is that not possible? After 13 years of Conservative rule, we have a vile and unjust society of mass unemployment. The Government say that our social system has no use for millions of our countrymen and women—that they are surplus to requirements and will be discarded and thrown on the scrap heap. Their lives will be blighted by misery and suffering through no fault of their own, but because, we are told, our country has no use for them and there are no opportunities for them to work. Such a society is immoral, and a Government who tolerate it should be turned out.
Exactly 100 years ago Newham, in the east end of London, elected and sent to the House of Commons the first Labour Member of Parliament, Keir Hardie. In his maiden speech on 7 February 1893—and I doubt whether it would be allowed today—he moved an amendment to the Loyal Address, in which he made a moving and passionate attack on the evils of unemployment and on the poverty, hardship, and moral degradation that often followed unemployment in those days. He said:
There is no more pitiable spectacle in the world than the man willing to work who, day after day, vainly 'begs a brother of the earth, To give him leave to toil'."—[Official Report,7 February 1893; Vol. 8, c. 730.]
In the century that has intervened since Hardie uttered those words, many things have changed and improved, but one evil that we thought had been vanquished has been brought back by the Government—the evil of mass unemployment.
There were no statistics in Hardie's day, but he estimated that 10 per cent. of the working population were unemployed. In Newham today, there are 20,000 unemployed, which is equal to 20 per cent. of its potential working population—which is twice as bad as in Hardie's day. What a commentary that is on 13 years of Conservative government.
We are dealing with not just statistics but human beings. Each human being thrown out of work represents an acute personal crisis, with the loss of the individual's confidence, identity, and self-esteem. A person is largely what he does, and if he does nothing, he begins to think that he is nothing. Soon, the anxieties, debt, despair, humiliation, and social and domestic problems pile up. The individual may find that he is threatened with homelessness. He soon realises how fragile was his previous comfortable existence, and that it depended on his wages or salary—and that once they were taken away he had nothing left.
The individual will soon learn also of society's prejudices—of the people who think that there is plenty of work if one is willing to do it, or that there is something wrong with anyone who remains unemployed for any length of time. His self-esteem suffers, and the frustrations, pressures and tensions are so easily brought home to the family. That often leads to marriage breakdowns. Unemployment today is the main cause of poverty and social ills—of home repossessions, divorce, suicide, ill-health and crime.
One person who has spoken most movingly about unemployment is the Prime Minister, who told us how he was unemployed for nine months at the age of 19. He received unemployment benefit of £2.17s.6d a week, but the unemployment pay of a man and wife with two children is 40 per cent. less today in real terms. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that that is a price well worth paying.
I want to mention crime. The Conservatives were largely elected on a law-and-order ticket, but since they have been in power crime has doubled. That is the fault not of the police but the Government, who have destroyed the hopes and livelihoods of millions of people. Senior police officers know that rising crime is linked to rising deprivation. In his final report as Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Peter Imbert stated;
The notion that there is a link between crime and social deprivation is a compelling one.
Any Conservative Member who pretends that is not so must ask why there is more crime in deprived areas and why, as deprivation has increased under this Government over the past 13 years, crime increased. Anyone who doubts the truth of that should ask insurance companies, who know that crime rates are higher in deprived areas, which leads them to charge higher premiums there.
Every year 400,000 young people leave school. One quarter of those, 100,000, will join those who have never had a job; they are without work, and the 16 to 17-year-olds are without benefits as well and many are even without a training place. They live on estates with unemployment at levels of 20, 30, 40 or 50 per cent. Children are being born into families who have never been to work, where the parents have never had a job. These are people with no hope, no money, no prospects, no stake in our society; they are shut out and owing nothing to our society, completely alienated. They are people with no escape from their plight. They are people who never have a holiday. The nearest thing they have to a holiday is taking part in a riot or joyriding.
What stops people committing crime is not the police; it is what might be called social control—concern about what other people, in particular people at work, will think. But what if they do not have a job, what if they have never had a job, what if they are never likely to have a job? Then, what the hell, what does it matter? That is why crime has doubled in the period of office of this Government. That should be recognised.
Some people ask what happened in the 1930s when there was mass unemployment but not rising crime. There was a perception then that everybody was in the same boat. Then, no one had a car, no one had a television set; there was a commonality of poverty. Now, however, people live in areas surrounded by streets full of cars, surrounded by people who have holidays and houses full of consumer goods, but they are shut out.
Kenneth Newman spoke in 1987 about
the volatile vapour of social discontent hanging over the city, looking for a spark to set it off.
In those circumstances, it is completely unrealistic to expect the police to screw down the lid. That is why we have the doubling of crime, because we have the huge increase in unemployment. It is pointless to deny that.
The Government must face their responsibilities and set a priority to full employment—and I am extremely pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on the Front Bench. This cannot be


left to the market. We have a market failure in Britain. We need public action. If we look around our towns and cities today, we see that there is work that needs to be done. We need something like Roosevelt's New Deal. During the war we had full employment to produce weapons of destruction. Is it really beyond our wit to bring about full employment now, to make the things that we need so desperately in the country at the moment?
We need a counter-cyclical boost of public expenditure to aid recovery. We should be encouraging that across Europe, if possible. But what do we have? I am closing on this note, because the European dimension has been raised by a number of hon. Members. We have the outdated and outmoded Maastricht treaty, the whole thrust of which is deflationary. It ordains huge cuts in public expenditure right across Europe.
If we in Britain were to get our public borrowing requirement down to 3 per cent. of gross domestic product as the treaty ordains, we should have to make cuts of £20 million, prolonging and deepening the recession. So I trust that when the Bill is in Committee we shall have a full examination of the employment effects of the treaty and that this matter will be fully dealt with, because in my view a strategy to bring back full employment will entail junking the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Barry Legg: We have had a wide-ranging debate this evening and a lot of unanswered questions are still to be addressed. A number of Opposition Members have referred back to halcyon days in the 1950s and 1960s when they left school and there was full employment. They seemed to be searching for the holy grail that will take us back to those times. They have talked about full employment, and if we look at the periods of great economic success that the world has experienced, we see that the first requirement for prosperity, success and growth of employment is growth in trade. That is particularly what we had during the 1950s and 1960s.
I am pleased that Britain is taking a lead in Europe on the issue of trade, and particularly on the GATT round, because addressing that problem and sorting it out will be of great benefit not only to Britain and Europe, but to the world as a whole. Growth in world trade will deliver prosperity and jobs.
The other important factor that needs to be taken into account in considering how to generate jobs, wealth and stability is productivity. We hear very little about productivity from the Opposition Benches. If we look at the successful economies in the world, we see that the economies that are gaining strength, a greater share of world trade, greater employment and prosperity are those that are achieving gains in productivity.
The world has been through a very difficult recession. Britain has experienced a difficult recession, which it is now coming out of, and I shall be saying more about that later.
We have just seen some very good figures from the United States on growth and employment. In the United States, unemployment has just fallen from 7·4 to 7·2 per cent. and 100,000 new jobs have been created in the last month. What do we find lying behind that growth in

employment and that success in the United States? We find two things. The first is monetary easing and lower interest rates. Over the past 18 months the Americans have steadily reduced their interest rates and that has given their consumers another $65 billion to spend, because that is the amount of money they would otherwise be spending on servicing domestic debt.
We have seen from Her Majesty's Government in the last few months welcome reductions in interest rates, which will help to provide a similar boost here in the United Kingdom.
The second factor in growth in employment in America is the very good figures on productivity growth and unit labour costs. In the past year, unit labour costs in the United States have risen by 0·5 per cent., the best record in the last nine years.
That is the sort of growth in productivity that we need in this country. Furthermore, reducing labour costs is not a route to poverty, as one might think from listening to some Opposition Members, but a route to wealth. At the same time as the United States produces figures showing how well it is containing labour costs, other figures show that income in the United States has risen by 1 per cent. in one month. Those are some of the trends that we need to see in the British economy to carry forward our recovery here.
Again, we see that the successful economies in the Far East are taking a greater share of world trade and their people are becoming more prosperous. Looking at the underlying reasons, we find that those are deregulated economies in which the price of labour is very competitive.
If we move back to the European scene, we find that Europe as a whole, particularly continental Europe, has not done very well over the past decade in terms of world trade. In the past seven years, Europe's share of world trade has declined by some 7 per cent. Some very worrying trends are apparent in the structure of labour costs, particularly in Germany, to which the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) referred earlier. Nearly 50 per cent. of German labour costs are now accounted for by non-wage costs. They are accounted for by social costs, and the German economy has been becoming more and more uncompetitive. In Germany, the average hourly labour cost is currently running at about $21; in Britain, it is running at about $12. We have achieved that significant gain by avoiding the heavy social costs that Opposition Members are only too keen for us to sign up to, in the form of the social chapter.
We can take a lead in Europe, on GATT and on the social chapter. We should encourage our European partners not to opt for a route that, rather than improving employee welfare, will spread poverty and unemployment. Let us examine the unemployment records of some continental countries. In Germany, unemployment is rising rapidly: 50,000 more people were made unemployed there last month, and some 3 million are currently unemployed. That figure is far too large. In France, some 2·9 million are unemployed; in Italy, the figure is about 2·8 million. In Spain, some 17 per cent. of people are unemployed, while the figure is nearly 20 per cent. in Ireland.
The figures for unemployment among people under the age of 25 are even more horrifying. In France, the rate is 21 per cent.; in Italy, it is 28 per cent.; in Spain, it is 31 per cent. Those are damaging figures, and I think that they


have some bearing on the remarks about the growth in extremism that were made earlier by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).
The economies that I have mentioned are experiencing a number of problems. Europe has not had an easy time over the past two years, but France, Italy and Spain all operate a minimum wage policy. The Labour party thinks that such a policy would benefit Britain, but minimum wage policies do not help the people at the bottom—they hurt them by keeping them out of work. Employers do not want to take on people whose skills are not as great as those of other workers, and they do not want to take on people who will need training. If they take on such people, they do not want to pay them more than the market rate. A minimum wage policy would in fact produce more unemployment, as the Labour party knows only too well.
None of the recipes cited by Opposition Members, today and on other occasions, will help employment; on the contrary, they will increase unemployment. I shall wait with interest to see how Labour will develop the policy of full employment that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras had the audacity to mention today.
My constituency, like many others, has had a difficult time during the recession. Opposition Members tend to come up with figures relating to job losses, doom and disaster, but, despite the difficulties experienced by my constituency, I intend to highlight some of the good things that are happening in Milton Keynes, which is a typical English town. In the past 12 months, some 6,515 new jobs have been created there. That will not capture the headlines in the national newspapers, as did the announcement of the loss of 15,000 Post Office jobs over five years through natural wastage, because it is essentially the result of small, successful local businesses expanding their work forces.
In the past year, 222 new working establishments have been started in Milton Keynes. That, too, will fail to make the headlines, but it is all about extra jobs. Milton Keynes has a diversified economy: we are very dependent on small businesses, which make up about 65 per cent. of our economy. Those small businesses are succeeding and taking on new employees, although I concede that times are difficult.

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that unemployment in Milton Keynes has trebled in the past two years?

Mr. Legg: As I said earlier, Milton Keynes has had a difficult time. I could have concentrated on the fact that unemployment in Milton Keynes has risen from 3 to 8 per cent. over the past two years; I could have detailed the job losses there. Instead, I recognised that Britain is now coming out of recession. Unemployment is a lagging indicator of recession. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will be interested to learn that unemployment in Milton Keynes has now flattened out, settling at 8 per cent. We are creating new jobs, and Milton Keynes—like the rest of Britain—will go forward under the Conservatives.

Mr. David Hanson: As hon. Members will expect, I shall not follow the line of route initiated by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg). Unlike Conservative Members, Opposition Members fully

support the minimum wage policy, and we are proud to have fought the last election on that basis; when the opportunity arises, we will introduce the minimum wage in the interest of justice and fairness. Sadly, the motion sums up all that the Opposition consider relevant about the current level of unemployment. At least we believe that it offers a glimmer of hope to the millions of people who are unemployed.
Having sat through the debate since 3.30 pm, I have been particularly struck by the staggering complacency of Conservative Members. They have not accepted an iota of the Opposition's argument that we face a national crisis in manufacturing employment, and that action should be taken at a national level, with the Government accepting responsibility for generating investment, wealth and creating jobs. That abdication of responsibility is one of the strangest aspects of the debate.
It may have escaped the notice of Conservative Members that, since the Prime Minister took office about two years ago, 1·1 million people have lost their jobs. Every day since then, 2,500 people have become unemployed. I am not here to doom-monger—I want to talk positively—but when 29 people are chasing every job vacancy, Government action is clearly needed.
What do we get from the Government? We have had a Gracious Speech and an autumn statement, which addressed the wrong issues; we have rail privatisation and coal privatisation; we have the abolition of the basic floor provided by wages councils; we have reductions in Government spending; we have the opting out of schools; we have tinkering with investment on the edges of the economy. We do not have a Government who are committed to the central agenda of creating employment and improving the lot of the millions—both Labour and Conservative voters—who want a better Britain to be provided through job creation.
I sometimes think that the Government are not living in the real world. I do not claim that my constituency is the worst affected in Wales or in the United Kingdom. Indeed, there are many good things in my constituency, and I would be the last person to run down Delyn. It has many factories which are creating wealth, employment and jobs. However, it would be foolish of me to ignore the fact that much has gone wrong in my constituency, which needs support from and action by the Government to promote employment.
In October there were 5,971 unemployed men and 1,641 unemployed women in the Shotton, Flint and Rhyl travel-to-work area which encompasses my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). Those figures represent a 9 per cent. unemployment rate in my constituency and a rate of 10·5 per cent. in Clwyd. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside is as concerned as I am about the level of unemployment in that travel-to-work area. I shall shortly discuss some of our proposals to help reduce those figures.

Mr. Barry Jones: My constituency shares boundaries with that of my hon. Friend. Today we heard that Northwest Airlines said that it would abandon its order for 74 airbus aircraft. Like me, my hon. Friend might want to know the consequences of the loss of that order for the British aerospace industry and for the 4,000 people employed at the Broughton works in my constituency where the airbus wings are made. Does my


hon. Friend agree that the Government should aim to put at the top of their agenda measures to help British manufacturing industry?

Mr. Hanson: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. I recently visited the aerospace works in his constituency because many of the workers are my constituents. They are crying out for an aerospace strategy to help create jobs and employment. Today's news that the airbus order might be cancelled is of particular concern to my part of north-east Wales.
In the Delyn borough council area there are 2,283 people out of work. In some of the wards in my constituency, 40 per cent. of males are unemployed. This is the 30th consecutive month in which unemployment has risen in Delyn constituency, where the total number of unemployed is 2,806. Although that is not the greatest number in Wales, it means that 2,806 people want to work and deserve the opportunity to do so. Government support could create valuable jobs.
In my constituency only 416 job vacancies are currently registered and in Flint—the largest town in the borough of Delyn—only 45 vacancies are registered with the jobcentre. With such a level of unemployment and lack of vacancies, we need solid action by the Government.
I draw again to Ministers' attention a fact that has been mentioned by many of my colleagues. It costs £9,000 to keep a person unemployed. That means that taxpayers in Delyn are spending £25 million this year on wasteful unemployment when we could undertake many projects to create wealth and jobs and to build a better society. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who is no longer present, said that public money does not create wealth, but many employers and business people in my constituency would welcome portions of that £25 million being spent in the private sector to provide the services that we need and to retain private sector jobs.
On Friday I attended a business lunch in Mold in my constituency with business men, none of whom, I suspect, voted for me in the general election but all of whom stated categorically that the Government were off the track and were not providing the necessary resources for the private sector through public investment. Most of all, they wanted public sector investment to help create private sector jobs. What do my constituents have to look forward to? Unfortunately, the answer, as for the rest of the United Kingdom, is, "Not a great deal".
Although the issue of travel-to-work areas is not part of the Minister's responsibility, I wish to raise it now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside is aware, the Flint, Shotton and Rhyl travel-to-work area, which has been in operation since 1984, is in the Government's proposed review. Deeside fears that the assisted area status, the accompanying Objective 2 status and the special development area status, which were put in place because of massive job losses in the steel and textile industries, will be lost when the review is completed.
There are still some of the 40 per cent. black spots in my constituency and along the coast which existed when the original Objective 2 status area was agreed. We also face the prospect of further job losses through colliery closures, which should add to the urgency with which the Government should tell north-east Wales that they believe. that its assisted area status should be maintained. The

Minister is shaking his head. Does he disagree with that point, is he not especially interested, or is he doing his crossword? I and many colleagues believe that assisted area status is valuable to our community and, if it is not maintained after the review, we shall return to the previous level of unemployment. At the moment, the enterprise zone and assisted area status is due to be withdrawn. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside and I wish it to be continued.
It is absolutely amazing that the Government can consider such a step, especially as my constituency faces the closure of the Point of Ayr colliery in the north of my constituency. When discussing unemployment, we must mention the Government's responsibility to create jobs, as well as that of the private sector.
The Point of Ayr pit is perfectly viable. It sells 80 per cent. of its coal to a power station down the road and the other 20 per cent. to businesses on the Wirral in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Wales. It has a market for its coal, and hon. Members may wish to refer to early-day motion 970 which mentions the world-beating coal produced in that pit. However, we now face the potential loss of 527 direct jobs and a total of 1,047 jobs there because of Government policy. Closure is proposed despite recent investment in the pit and despite the fact that it has the ability to produce coal at competitive prices. It is an absolute scandal.
The colliery and its on-site contractors provide an immense resource for a local skill base. What surer way is there to continue unemployment and the downward cycle than to remove from the local economy a major skill base from my constituency and other affected areas?
The Secretary of State for Employment referred to the potential cost of retraining redundant miners. In Wales that cost is estimated at £2·6 million. That includes the retraining of miners who might lose their jobs at the Point of Ayr colliery. Would not it be better if that money were invested in the colliery to ensure its productivity and if we had a proper energy policy which ensured that coal had a valuable role?
Delyn borough council recently did some excellent work on estimating the cost of replacing the 1,000 jobs that would be lost if the Point of Ayr colliery were closed, although I hope that it will not come to that. The council estimated that about £150 million of taxpayers' money at a local level would be needed to replace those jobs. Do not hon. Members accept that it would be better to find positive ways in which the Government can spend the £150 million and to put jobs on the agenda instead of using those resources to respond to a closure which need not occur? Valuable resources have been invested in the pit in the past few years.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) will mention south Wales if the opportunity arises. Bearing in mind all the problems facing my constituency and those of my colleagues, surely the Government could have tabled a better amendment than the waffle that they have produced. The Government are complacent about what is happening. Perhaps Ministers and Conservative hon. Members are not aware of what is happening outside the House. Many people who are natural Conservative supporters are suffering tremendously in the recession. They are looking to the House for leadership and for quality jobs.

Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that people from all walks of life are suffering in the current recession. Does he agree that it is a Europe-wide problem and that the results of unemployment in this country are by no means the worst in Europe? The hon. Gentleman should consider the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg). In Spain, which has a minimum wage policy, the unemployment level for young people is 33·7 per cent. The hon. Gentleman will recall that figure. In a European context, what are your proposals for dealing with the problem——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should address me. His intervention has now gone on long enough.

Mr. Heald: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Hanson: I find it interesting that a Conservative Member asks an Opposition Member about Government policies and about what our position in Europe should be when Britain has the presidency of the European Community and when the Prime Minister has the opportunity to feed in policies. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) would care to speak to the Prime Minister and to ask him what his policies for Europe are. We shall ask that because we do not appear to be getting Government support or co-ordination on those points. We can discuss the minimum wage at another time. I regard the minimum wage as vital to our community and especially to Wales, which is the lowest-paid region in the United Kingdom.
Conservative Members have mentioned the depressing side of our arguments and the fact that we have concentrated on job losses. I want to be positive about our community. As I have said, Delyn has much to offer prospective employers, as does north Wales and especially north-east Wales. I should like to hear support from Conservative Members for our positive proposals for job creation. There is much that we need to do. I could cite a number of examples in my own constituency of things that could be done to create employment in Wales and elsewhere.
Let us consider transport. As I said, it would cost £150 million to replace the jobs that may be lost at Point of Ayr colliery. It would cost £40 million of Government money to improve the Crewe-Holyhead rail link. My hon. Friends from all parts of the United Kingdom could mention projects that would create employment, would help the infrastructure and would bring jobs and support, especially to north Wales. The third Dee crossing is a major road infrastructure project which is close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside. It would create jobs, it would put construction workers back to work, it would get people off the dole and it would improve the infrastructure of north Wales. It is a valuable capital project.
The retention of Objective 2 area status for north Wales, including the Shotton, Rhyl and Flint travel-to-work area, is now entirely in the hands of the Government and of Conservative Members. The retention of that status would ensure, as it would in other parts of the United Kingdom, the retention of support to areas that have been hard hit since 1979 when the Government took office.
On energy policy, I make no apology for repeating the fact that my community is in dire need because the

Government may close the Point of Ayr colliery. Many people's jobs depend on that colliery. It would be simple for the Government to make a statement and to consider a positive energy policy to help to reduce the burdens on the community.
An aerospace strategy has been mentioned, as has a tourism strategy which would support the parts of my constituency that depend on tourism. We need a housing strategy to put the many building workers in my constituency back to work and to help to meet the needs of the 2,650 people who are currently homeless in Delyn. All of those are positive policies that the Government could propose to help to create employment in the community. However, the Government choose not to do so which is a scar on their reputation and on Conservative Members who do not seek to invest in jobs in our community.
Our motion sums up our concern for jobs and for employment. The one message that I shall take back to my constituency at the weekend is the frightening level of complacency that Conservative Members who have spoken tonight have shown about our economy and about the level of jobs in our communities. Above all places in the United Kingdom, the House should say to people in our communities, "We know why you are suffering, we know how you are suffering, and we have a strategy to build our way to recovery." Conservative Members have shown that they have no strategy and no plans for recovery. That is why the Government will fail in clue course.

Mr. Graham Riddick: One of the disappointing aspects of the debate has been the rather poor attendance of hon. Members of all parties. The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) should also take the message to his constituents that few of his hon. Friends bothered to turn up to listen to their own debate on unemployment. That is an indictment of the Labour party.
I can well understand that Labour Members did not turn up because they did not want to listen to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). That is fully understandable. However, it is a shame that we do not see more Labour Members present for such a debate.
The hon. Member for Delyn asked about the Government's European policy. One thing I know about Labour's policy on Europe is that it seeks to increase the money provided through the social fund and through the cohesion fund, which the Maastricht treaty seeks to introduce. The reality is that any extra funds that go into the two funds will find their way to the poorer, southern countries of the European Community rather than to the regions of this country. Labour Members should be slightly cautious about calling for more funds in those areas.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made a disappointing and poor speech. On three or four occasions, he responded to interventions by saying that we should have to wait until later in his speech and that he was not able to deal with interventions at that stage. He was rather insulting to the unemployed when he suggested that they would all commit crimes because they were unemployed. That comment was unfortunate.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras talked about right-wing, fascist extremists. The reality is that


there is a problem with right-wing, fascist extremists in Europe. They are not a problem in this country. They are a problem in Germany, in Italy and in France, but not in this country.
The only job creation scheme put forward by the Labour party which has ever worked is the one in Monklands district council where 22 wives, sons and daughters of a small group of Labour councillors have been employed. I ask Opposition Members when they will express sympathy for 51-year-old Tom McFarlane, who was made redundant because he and his wife dared to question the internal procedures of the local Labour party and its corrupt control of the local council. To date, we have heard nothing about that saga from the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the Leader of the Opposition. He has been totally silent. It is time that he put that right and it is time that he condemned the practices in Monklands district council.
Unemployment is a curse on our society: of that there is no doubt. All hon. Members accept that. Unemployment leads to all sorts of desperate difficulties for individuals who have lost their jobs and for their families. The strain that unemployment puts on families sometimes leads to the break-up of those families and sometimes even leads to people losing their homes. Conservative Members care about the real problems that face ordinary people—our constituents who become unemployed.
It is misleading to suggest that there is an easy answer to the difficulty. The quack solutions that we have heard from the Labour party today demonstrate why it was that the British people did not entrust Labour with government last April. The propositions put forward by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras were glib and facile on the whole, and demonstrated, once again, that the Labour party is wedded to state intervention as its preferred option. We heard that the Government must take action on jobs. The hon. Member for Delyn said that we need an industrial policy and a package of measures. However, Opposition Members never tell us how those measures are to be paid for.
So long as Labour advocates a national minimum wage and pushes for Britain to sign the European social chapter, Labour does not deserve to be taken seriously in respect of unemployment. Those two proposals would cost hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens their jobs.
The scourge of unemployment will be tackled properly only when the process of wealth creation is set solidly on track. The fundamentals are what counts. For a year until golden Wednesday on 16 September, interest rates in this country were too high. They were at a level inappropriate to Britain's domestic requirements. We all know that that stemmed directly from Britain's membership of the exchange rate mechanism—a policy that was supported wholeheartedly by the Labour party. However, now that the Government have been able to reduce interest rates by three points to 7 per cent., British exporters are more able to sell their products overseas and a recovery will take place. The fundamental requirements for recovery are now in place.
I know that Ministers are wary of trumpeting recovery for fear of heralding a false storm once more. However, as a humble Back Bencher and a humble Parliamentary

Private Secretary, I am prepared to stick my neck out and say that I believe that a good recovery will take place in 1993. I believe that it might be considerably stronger than the 1 per cent. forecast by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn statement.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the recovery may already have started—at least in the north of England where people are less highly geared. Yorkshire folk are very sensible and canny and they did not borrow up to their eyeballs in the heady days of the 1980s. As they have fewer borrowing commitments, they will be able to take advantage of the lower mortgage repayments and of the favourable economic conditions that now exist.
I spoke recently to a medium-sized manufacturer based in Halifax who does a great deal of exporting. He told me that his order book has exploded since the devaluation of the pound. He has taken on a greatly increased number of orders and that is good news. He is also looking to employ people.
Only a week ago, I spoke to a stockbroker based in Huddersfield. He told me that he saw green shoots of recovery all over Yorkshire. I do not want to get carried away, but there are some encouraging signs. Some companies' order books are increasing and there is more confidence about the future.
I spoke to a friend of mine who sells furniture. He told me that his sales have increased markedly in Yorkshire and, funnily enough, particularly in the north-east of England. That anecdotal evidence, allied to figures showing the recent growth in the money supply and in retail sales, provides encouraging signs for the future.
Putting that evidence to one side, my real cause for optimism is that we now have in place the economic and monetary policies conducive to recovery. I believe that that recovery will take place. Recovery in the wealth—creating sectors will bring in its wake the new jobs that we all so desperately want to see. That will not come about through the quack solutions of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who advocates state intervention here and state spending there.
Between 1985 and 1990, unemployment fell by more than 1 million because of the new jobs being created in the real industrial world. We created the right economic conditions of low inflation, minimum regulation, moderate personal and corporate taxation, less of the nation's wealth being swallowed up by the state and a climate for enterprise. Those are the conditions that we will have to recreate—and which I believe that we are creating—for the 1990s. There are no facile, quack solutions.
The Labour party does not understand industry. Labour Members advocate that politicians should have a hands-on approach to industry and that politicians should have an industrial policy. However, the reality is that hardly any Labour Members have ever worked in industry. It is fair to point out that practically none of the spokesmen in the shadow Employment, Treasury or Trade and Industry teams have ever worked in industry.
I was interested to note from his biographical details that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras worked at the headquarters of the Central Electricity Generating Board for 10 years. That was certainly a nationalised industry in those days, but I am not sure what his job entailed. I suppose that it was at least close to industry so I must not denigrate it.
The fact that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras can refer to business men in this country as
stinking, lousy, thieving, incompetent scum
demonstrates his contempt for people who run businesses in this country.

Ms. Quin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Riddick: The hon. Lady is now going to try to defend the indefensible.

Ms. Quin: Far from defending the indefensible, I would like to repeat the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). He made it clear that he was referring to employers who pay poverty wages.

Mr. Riddick: Whatever the circumstances, one should not refer to business men as
stinking, lousy, thieving, incompetent scum".
One simply does not do that, particularly if one claims to hold a responsible position within the shadow Cabinet as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras does. The comments of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras demonstrate his contempt for industry and for business in general. We hear that kind of approach from the Opposition far too often.
The negative knocking of industry by the Labour party achieves nothing and it certainly does not help to create a climate of confidence. We all know that confidence is terribly important. Out there in the real world confidence is fragile. The Labour party could help by being less negative and more positive about opportunities and about the future.
When companies make announcements about redundancies, that is also bad for confidence. It certainly does not help to restore confidence. Last week, the Post Office announced 16,500 job losses. When I heard that, I thought, "My God, that's appalling. That will be disastrous for confidence." However, when I read the small print in the newspapers the next day, I realised that the jobs were to be lost through natural wastage over five years.
The fact that those jobs are to be lost is regrettable. However, they are being lost not so much because of the recession, but because of improved technology which is being introduced in the Post Office. An interesting article by Anatole Kaletsky appeared in The Times on Monday. He pointed out that too many companies are making big redundancy announcements when they have no intention of losing so many people. He reported that there is a cult of management machismo. If that is the case, it is most unfortunate. Industrialists should stop making such announcements unless absolutely necessary.
Mr. Kaletsky pointed out that
redundancy costs can often be reported as an 'extraordinary item' in a company's accounts and do not therefore affect the earnings per share from continuing operations".
I understand that the practice will cease in the middle of next year—and about time, too.
The Government's economic policy is now on the right tracks. Interest rates have come down and inflation is low. The autumn statement responded to the representations of industry, contrary to many of the statements made from the Opposition Benches. Recovery is in sight arid with recovery will come renewed job opportunities. The small

businesses will create the jobs of the future. The big companies are shedding jobs because of improved technology that they are introducing into their factories.
My old company, Coca Cola and Schweppes Beverages, is able to produce as many cans of pop by employing 200 people in its new factory in Wakefield as it took 1,800 people to produce only a few years ago. I do not particularly welcome that; it is simply a fact of life. It demonstrates the difficulty of creating new jobs in the United Kingdom. The small businesses will create new jobs, so we must create the right economic conditions in the United Kingdom. That is exactly what the Government are doing. The Labour party's quack solutions involve an extension of state intervention and power, which represents the policies of the past. Private enterprise competing with a free market will create the jobs of the future.

Mr. John Hutton: I have been fortunate to listen to most of the speeches in the debate. Unlike the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), I have not heard any of my right hon. and hon. Friends knock British industry. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will not knock British industry because I am a strong and passionate supporter of industry, especially the engineering industry.
I should like to talk about the current level of unemployment in my constituency and its effect on the fabric of life in my community. I should also like to talk more widely about the current difficulties in British manufacturing industry.
Before doing so, I express to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) the immense feeling and regret in my constituency about the closure of Cammell Laird at Merseyside. Cammell Laird is a great shipyard. It has a great and strong history. The people in my constituency feel real regret that it has been announced that the yard will close. I place the responsibility for that closure not on the management of Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited but on the policies being pursued by the Government. Since 1979 the Government have consistently failed to support the British shipbuilding industry.
Today there was a lobby of Parliament from people in my constituency. It is unusual for my constituents to lobby Parliament, because my constituency must be one of the most difficult to get to and from. However, many of my constituents made the effort to come to Parliament to meet hon. Members and Ministers and to remind them of what has been happening in one of the great centres of the British engineering industry.
Since 1990 and the publication of "Options for Change", 8,500 redundancies have been declared in my constituency. More redundancies have been declared in Barrow and Furness than in any other British constituency. Those redundancies are a devastating blow to my constituency. About 4,500 people are registered as unemployed, although the true extent of unemployment in the constituency is substantially higher. I have just learnt that 5,500 of my constituents claim sickness benefit, the vast number of whom will be unemployed. If the number of my constituents claiming sickness benefit is added to the


number claiming unemployment benefit, the real level of unemployment in my constituency is probably nearer 20 per cent. than the official figure of 10 per cent.
My particular worry is the effect that the redundancies and job losses have had on young people. Since 1990, 1,000 engineering apprentices have disappeared from my constituency. Every year the VSEL shipyard recruited about 300 young people aged 16 years. Most of them were boys, but many were young women. That recruitment of apprentice trainees has finished. Vickers accounted for a high proportion of the total number of engineering apprentices in the United Kingdom. The loss of the recruitment programme is a serious blow not only to my constituency but to the engineering industry of the United Kingdom and our future as a trading nation. That level of apprentice lay-offs is a devastating blow to my community and the country as a whole.
Unfortunately, we know that there will be heavy job losses in Barrow in the next two years. The programme of shedding workers and redundancies at Vickers is far from over. The worst expectation is that as many as 4,000 extra redundancies could be made in my constituency in the next two to three years. The combined effect of those redundancies will be that every family in my constituency will have been directly affected by unemployment. Whole families have lost their jobs at the shipyard. Many parents are worried about the employment prospects for their children. Therefore, in my constituency and in the constituencies of my hon. Friends—and, I suspect, the constituencies of Conservative Members—an entire culture of service to the nation and an entire tradition of skill and work are at risk.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley spoke about the feelings of many Conservative Members about those who are out of work. I was glad to hear him say that, because the impression I gained from listening to the debate is that there is not a great deal of concern among Conservative Members. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's reassurance.
When we talk about unemployment we are not whingeing. We are not knocking British industry or running the country down, as many Conservative Members would like the House to believe. We are simply reminding the Government and Conservative Members of the consequences of their economic policies. For many communities in Britain, those economic policies have been devastating in the past few years.
The root of the present difficulties in my constituency lies with the Government's failure to support manufacturing industry, especially the engineering industry. The shipbuilding industry has been badly hit by the recession. Indeed, that industry has been in a process of structural decline, certainly since the late 1970s. In response to some of the comments that I have heard tonight, I should point out that Britain's shipbuilding industry and, indeed, the shipbuilding industry of Europe is not a smokestack or old-fashioned industry. It is a high-tech and highly skilled industry.
The contribution of my constituents to shipbuilding and the quality of engineering in my constituency are second to none in the world. In particular, the engineering work on the Trident programme is without parallel; it is some of the highest-quality work that any British shipyard has ever produced.
A Conservative Member referred to engineering as a low-tech, metal-bashing industry. That is nonsense. The shipbuilding industry of Britain, especially the shipbuilding facilities in the Devonshire Dock Hall in Barrow, is the finest in Europe—I would argue that it is the finest in the world. Because of the Government's inaction and their pursuit of ideology, there is a serious risk that we shall once again surrender huge tracts of our engineering industry to foreign competition. When the worldwide demand for merchant shipbuilding is set to double in the next 10 years, why are we still pursuing a range of policies that will mean that British shipyards will not be able to compete for that work?
It is inconceivable that any other European Government will allow such an important industry to be sacrificed on what I can only describe as a rather outdated and pathetic high altar of free market forces. We are pursuing policies to spite ourselves—to cut off our noses—and there is no economic, political or social logic in such policies.
Other shipbuilding industries in Europe are taking advantage of an increase in orders for merchant shipbuilding. I ask the Government to recognise the contribution that our marine engineering industry can play in revitalising our manufacturing base. As a maritime nation with an immensely proud history and tradition, it is extraordinary that the United Kingdom does not have a policy for its marine engineering industry. How have we ended up in such an extraordinary and ludicrous position?
I am not here simply to highlight the problems in my constituency, although I believe that those problems are very serious. I want to offer the Government some positive advice and guidance about what they should do to tackle the growing unemployment in my constituency and other shipbuilding communities in Britain. The Government need to reconsider their position on the seventh EC directive on aid to the European shipbuilding industry. In particular, they need to reconsider their view that the naval shipyards of Britain should not qualify, and will never qualify, for intervention funding.
Looking back at the past 10 to 12 years, it might have been logical in the 1980s for the Government to take that view, because the order books of our naval yards were buoyant and the cold war was still in full force. Many of the naval shipyards of Britain were able to look forward to decades or more of secure employment. That was certainly true of the VSEL shipyard in Barrow.
We looked forward to building a large number of hunter-killer submarines and a full complement of 2400-class Upholder boats. All that finished when the Secretary of State for Defence announced substantial cuts in the submarine procurement programme. At a stroke, my constituency lost £3 billion worth of envisaged submarine procurement. The same is true to a smaller extent of other yards in Britain. The naval construction programme was substantially pruned.
It is not possible for constituencies such as mine, which have been historically dependent on work from the Ministry of Defence, suddenly to change on their own. The naval yards that had looked forward to secure order books found themselves with none. They found themselves in much the same position as many of the merchant yards in the 1970s and early 1980s.
British warship yards have experienced a substantial and material change of circumstances. That declining volume of work and expected work from the Ministry of


Defence should compel the Government to reconsider their view of the seventh directive and argue the case at European level for intervention funding to help our warship yards.
Our warship yards are just about all that we have left of a once mighty industry. For example, the industry once produced more than half of all the ships built on the planet. We are now reduced to a tiny fragment of that. Given the range of skills and the level of investment in some of our yards, it would be criminal for the Government not to continue to support the British shipbuilding industry by seeking amendments to the seventh directive. They should seek to develop an eighth directive that will enable the warship yards to qualify for merchant shipbuilding work. It is essential that the Government do that.
It is imperative that my constituency attracts assisted area status and development area status. I have noticed—I am sure that other hon. Members have also noticed—that the budget for the Department of Trade and Industry for the next three years is set to fall. In my constituency we have invested a great deal of hope in attracting assisted area status. But where is the beef? Where will the cash come from to give my constituents and those of other hon. Members the hope and confidence that they want for the future? The Department of Trade and Industry should be one of the great Departments of state. It should lead and fuel the engine of British engineering industry. Yet it is set to cut the support that it provides. That is an alarming development.
We have heard a great deal during the debate about training. It is important to bear it in mind that most of the training and enterprise councils are gearing themselves up for further cuts next year. Unlike the hon. Member for Colne Valley, I see little empirical evidence of recovery in the British economy. He may give anecdotal evidence that unemployment is levelling off in his constituency. I am delighted to hear that, for the sake of his constituents, but there is no sign that unemployment is levelling off in my constituency. We expect unemployment to double in the next two years. That is a horrifying prospect for my constituents.
The Government say that a commitment to high-quality training underlies their supposed concern about unemployment. We do not see that in my constituency. Cumbria TEC faces substantial cuts in its training budget for next year, at a time when we know that unemployment is set to rise substantially in my constituency.
Plenty of issues give rise to anxiety and it is appropriate for hon. Members to express that anxiety, as I have done, without being accused of whingeing or of knocking British industry. I am not knocking British industry. Industry has played an historic role in my constituency not only in defending the country—we are proud of that—but by being a resource which is of use to the nation. We have the skills, the engineering excellence and the base.
Opposition Members do not knock British industry. We support it. We wish sometimes that the Government would do the same. Like many other shipbuilding communities, my constituents have given real service to Britain in both war and peace. They are not being properly rewarded. Indeed, they are not being rewarded at all.
The Government should display the imagination and provide the support that other nations give to their

shipbuilding industries. That would have a substantial beneficial effect on unemployment in all the shipbuilding communities of Britain.
Taking a wider view, Opposition Members see with alarm what is happening to the British economy. Many statistics have been traded about the state of the British economy. However, it is appropriate to examine some of the statistics that have not been mentioned so far tonight. Unemployment stands at almost 3 million. It has risen for 29 consecutive months—a cumulative rise of more than 1·2 million. Vacancies have fallen to 95,000—the lowest level since 1981. We have the third highest level of unemployment in the European Community.
Manufacturing industry is dear to my heart and essential to the well-being and prosperity of my constituents. Manufacturing investment was 5 per cent. lower in the first six months of 1992 than in the same period in 1991. It fell by 16·5 per cent. between 1989 and 1991 and is now lower than in 1979. Investment in the whole economy fell by 2·5 per cent. between the first and second quarters of 1992, having fallen by 10 per cent. in 1991. Those are pretty grim statistics.
Let us examine our gross domestic product compared with that of other countries in the European Community. From 1990 to the present day, the United Kingdom GDP has fallen by 2·5 per cent., while that of Germany has grown by 5·3 per cent., that of France has grown by 6·1 per cent. and the EC average is a growth of 4·5 per cent. In the same period, United Kingdom manufacturing output, which is of direct interest to my constituents, has fallen by 5·25 per cent. while that of Germany has risen by almost 8 per cent., that of France has risen by 5·5 per cent. and that of Spain has risen by 7 per cent. Those are the real indicators of the Government's achievements in managing the British economy. It is a pathetic and embarrassing record.
Ministers continue to believe that government is part of the problem. That is not true; government can be part of the solution. It is depressing to hear Conservative Members continue to run down and neglect the role of the Government in fuelling activity in the economy. We need the right balance between macroeconomic policies and supply-side measures to produce low-inflationary growth in the economy. There is no sign that Ministers or Conservative Members are thinking along those lines. In that case, unemployment will continue to rise.
There will be no hope for those who are unemployed until the Government change course and recognise that unemployment is an injustice which must be put right. That is why I shall support the motion in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Oliver Heald: In my constituency we share many of the problems of unemployment described by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). It may seem odd to say that north Hertfordshire and Barrow and Furness have anything in common, but we have always relied on the defence industry for employment. We have been hit hard by the cuts in defence spending in the past two years. Unemployment has increased by 143 per cent. in that period.
I accept that unemployment has caused distress to the families of my constituents. It causes great anxiety and often it is a tragedy for them. I have met Many of them. Conservative Members understand the anxiety and distress that people feel in those circumstances. However, the point that Conservative Members make is not that the Opposition criticise the Government in a shallow way; our point is that Opposition Members fail to consider the full background to the problem. It is wrong to view a policy for full employment as a realistic aim, in the short term at any rate, when across Europe 12 million people are registered unemployed. It is said that we need 2·5 per cent. growth merely to stand still.
The background of high unemployment in Europe has not been addressed in the speeches that we have heard today. When my learned Friend—I mean my hon. Friend; old habits die hard—the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) gave the statistics on youth unemployment it was noticeable that there was no answer to the point that Spain has 33·7 per cent., France has 22·1 per cent., Ireland has 28 per cent. and Italy has 29 per cent. youth unemployment. Those countries have minimum wage policies but seem unable to develop successful policies to deal with youth unemployment. In this country, youth unemployment is well below the average in the rest of the European Community. It would be wrong to consider that issue without taking into account the background of unemployment and the task that Europe faces in trying to deal with it.
When the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) attacked British companies, saying that they were not fit to be in the Group of Seven and were not among the best, I felt that it was a complete misdescription of British industry. We have 27 of the top 50 companies and six out of the top 10 big companies in Europe. There are successes, which Opposition Members are simply ignoring.
In north Hertfordshire the rate of increase in unemployment has levelled off and has fallen in recent months because of local companies' response to the problems. Our largest employer, Johnson Matthey plc, based in Royston—a precious metals business and manufacturer of auto catalysts—has announced improved results for the first six months of 1992 because it has excellent products, high levels of efficiency and has invested heavily in the products that it manufactures. It has done a good deal of research and development with considerable assistance from Government funds. As a result, that great company has been able to regenerate at one end of my constituency.
At the other end of my constituency, a large number of people work at the Vauxhall motors plant at Luton. Sales of cars have improved in recent months, which has been good for employment in the constituency. Many smaller companies have entered the BS5750 quality management improvement scheme and seem to have had successes resulting from that. Many small companies have made use of available Department of Trade and Industry schemes, road shows and local advisers to improve their export performance. They found that the British Overseas Trade Board's new approach of trying to identify markets for British goods has been a success.
Our chambers of commerce are trying to spread best practice throughout the constituency. New business opportunities for companies have resulted from the inter-trade fairs that have been arranged. The Letchworth Business Club must be an example to the country—500 companies take part in its activities to improve quality, to export more and to try to improve the local position.
The training and enterprise council in Hertfordshire has had to face a large blow because of defence industry cuts. It has set up a task force for Hertfordshire and co-ordinated efforts to improve inward investment, training and the regeneration of local business, to some effect. It also pioneered training credits and customised training schemes. That is a model of what should be happening throughout the country.
From the evidence given to the Select Committee on Employment, it is noticeable that training and enterprise councils provide a good focus for regeneration in areas where jobs have been lost. Some union leaders, such as Bill Jordan, were noticeably enthusiastic about the ways in which TECs could be used, while others were not. It would be a good thing if hon. Members on both sides of the House agreed that TECs are the way in which we are going to deliver training and stimulate enterprise and if we all put our support behind them.
The submission on pit closures by the north Nottinghamshire TEC to the Secretary of State was interesting. Against a difficult background, it has been able to persuade 500 local companies to become members of its scheme, and it got about 40 new corporate members every month. Perhaps the Manufacturing Science Finance union was able to reach a no-strike agreement with the Japanese company Toray Textiles Europe in that area because it has a good training and enterprise council and because the local unions are getting the message. The attitude of Roger Lyons, the new general secretary of the MSF, is in stark contrast to that of his predecessor, Ken Gill. Mr. Lyons comments on the new agreement are worth quoting—
Day 1 of MSF was September 1 1992. I'm not going to be held responsible for statements or comments made personally by my predecessor.
The deal marks a watershed for the MSF by taking a predominantly white-collar union into blue-collar representation. The Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union was so delighted at the change of attitude that Paul Gallagher said:
I'm surprised but delighted that MSF have stopped seeing inward investment as alien.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that north Nottinghamshire workers are pragmatic and hard working? The record of Nottinghamshire miners, and of miners throughout the country, speaks for itself—during the past five years there has been a 150 per cent. increase in productivity. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the north Nottingham TEC and some of the things that it does. Surely one needs to invest in infrastructure to bring new jobs, investment and prosperity to north Nottinghamshire. To invest—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a long intervention.

Mr. Heald: I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). Obviously it is important that an area such as north Nottinghamshire should be able to regenerate the jobs that have been lost and those which may be lost with pit closures—we do not know at this stage. To do so, a range of measures will need


to be taken in the locality. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Lord Walker has the job of considering a range of measures that may be necessary to regenerate the local economy in areas where pits are closed.
In an area like Mansfield, which I understand is some distance from main road and rail links, it may be necessary to consider what major investments will be needed. Alternatively, workers in Mansfield might be able to move nearer to road and rail links to obtain work. The important thing is that TECs can play a pivotal role in regenerating areas where there are substantial job losses and that has been proved in Hertfordshire. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members will put their full weight behind the TECs and that they and the trade unions will not make the sort of ill-conceived criticisms that they have made in the past.

Mr. Alan Milburn: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Ms. Angela Eagle.

Ms. Eagle: rose——

Mr. Heald: I had not finished my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was giving way to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), who wished to intervene.

Mr. Milburn: I wish to defend the honour of Roger Lyons, who as my general secretary will be delighted by the hon. Member's support. Would he care to comment on the fact that there was a cross-party argument not so much on the role of TECs but on the resources being made available to them? Is it not a fact that this year a near majority of TECs have had their funding cut compared with last year and that they have had to cut about 500,000 employment training weeks from their budgets as a result of the Department of Employment cuts in funding?

Mr. Heald: The Department of Employment has had a real-terms increase in its budget for next year, and I understand that a further £118 million will be available.
As I was saying, the trends in north Hertfordshire and in areas where the TECs are giving a lead are especially important. In addition, the initiatives of the Department of Trade and Industry in support of our exporters are about to be expanded, and that is to be welcomed.
In addition to all of that, we are, under Conservative rule, cutting down on bureaucracy. About 24,000 Government forms have already been scrapped and steps are being taken to try to improve the VAT regulations. The measure introduced recently to allow small companies to pay VAT on receipts rather than invoices is working well and, for example, Hitchin chamber of commerce has described it as a successful step. We want other measures to reduce the dominance of large trading companies over their smaller counterparts, and the recent Green Paper on that subject is to be welcomed.
It is interesting, when examining the role of trade unions with single union agreements and inward investment—some unions have supported the concept, while others have not—to note that, in its evidence to the Select Committee on Employment, the TUC praised the efforts of trade unions and the valleys programme in helping to attract inward investment. That conflicts with what some Labour Members have said about the programme being a failure. Indeed, the TUC said:
It is through government, employers and trade unions working in partnership in this way within our communities that real progress will be achieved.

Britain has the lowest interest rates in Europe, a competitive exchange rate, low taxes and an excellent work force with good industrial relations. That is a winning ticket with which Britain can go forward and succeed. If we add the measures taken in the autumn statement to revive the housing market, improve business investment, reduce car tax and help export credits, we are better placed than the rest of Europe to face up to the problem of unemployment. That is why I shall support the Government amendment.

Ms. Angela Eagle: I might describe my attempt to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) as the shortest contribution I have ever made in the Chamber.
I wish to speak generally about the Conservatives' record on unemployment, going back initially to 1979 and then examining their policies that have led to high rates of unemployment. I reinforce some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) for his remarks about Cammell Laird.
One of the main features of post-1979 Conservative Governments has been the high, increasing and persistent rates of unemployment resulting directly from their policies. Much has been said today about recession in the rest of Europe and throughout the world. Conservative Members have failed to point out that we in Britain are into our second recession. We went into recession earlier and have remained there longer. Indeed, we are now in an even more persistent recession, the worst Britain has experienced for 60 years. So while there may now be world recession problems, that was not the case when the Conservatives, with their odd policies and peculiar ideological obsessions, plunged us into recession in 1980–81.

Mr. Heald: Britain is now poised to come out of recession—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]—while countries such as Germany are predicted to have unemployment levels rising to about 6 million within two years.

Ms. Eagle: Time will tell whether we are about to come out of recession and whether the hon. Gentleman's predictions will materialise. After all, we have been on the starting blocks, the green shoots showing, for at least 18 months, yet we are still bumping along the bottom.
It is important in a debate about unemployment to consider the Conservative record going back over the years rather than to dwell only on the present state of affairs, especially as that record includes persistent and high rates of unemployment, reaching levels that nobody thought possible prior to 1979. It was not thought at that time that such unemployment levels could be politically sustainable in a democracy. The Government have presented the situation today as a sort of natural phenomenon that descended on Britain in the last 14 years. They claim that there was little, if anything, they could have done about it.
There are two clear effects of the dogma adopted by the Conservatives in the years immediately following 1979. Still showing through their policies is the ideological belief that it is no role of Government to do anything to deal with demand in the economy. They seem to think that they


need only remove government from as many areas of life as possible and all will come right because market forces will provide.
The second clear effect is the appalling incompetence demonstrated by the first Tory Government in 1979, when they launched themselves on their frenzied monetarist phase, which destroyed one third of the then British manufacturing base. We have not yet recovered from that.
We must return to those early years of Conservative government to recall how bad the situation was. Their monetarist dogma has been discredited by its very practice. It has been shown to be absolute nonsense. Not only has it not worked, but it has been damaging to the nation. The House need not take my word for that. Monetarism proved to be a disaster for employment, and we are living with the consequences of it today. I quote from a recently published book—I shall identify the author shortly—on the subject:
Thatcherism largely consisted of 19th century individualism dressed up in 20th century clothes. Economic dogma was at its core.
The author went on to say that Thatcherites adopted a particularly dogmatic form of classical economics and that no other Government had become such fundamentalist devotees of the Friedmanite scriptures. The Conservative party, of all the leading right-wing European democratic parties, had then become
far and away the most dogmatic.
It is clear from today's debate that that dogma still exists. The author continues:
The attempt to control the money supply helped to produce an exceptionally large, rapid and enduring rise in unemployment.
That was not written by a Marxist or trendy lefty polytechnic lecturer. The author was Lord Gilmour in his book "Dancing with Dogma."

Mr. Michael Forsyth: If monetarism and what the hon. Lady described as Thatcherism was such a disaster in the 1980s, perhaps she will explain why we got an extra 1 million self-employed people and more than an extra 1 million jobs in the economy during that period.

Ms. Eagle: I had intended to deal with that issue later and to examine the quality as well as the quantity of jobs created. The structure of employment in Britain has changed in the past 14 years, away from secure and skilled jobs to more insecure, low-paid and part-time jobs.
Apart from the obsession with monetarism in the early 1980s, Conservative ideology believed that the superiority of market forces would provide, so that the Government could sit back and wait for the market to provide perfect solutions to every problem.
We are now in our second recession. We have lost massive chunks of manufacturing industry, and only 4 million of the 50 million people who live in this country now work in manufacturing. Great swathes of skilled people have been put on the dole and many healthy industries have gone to the wall simply because, as Lord Gilmour said, the Government's reaction to what is happening in the economy has been much more dogmatic than that of the Christian Democrat Governments in Europe, all of whom admit that there is a role for intervention.
Intervention has a role not only in events in a sector of the economy but also in affecting demand. The level of

demand in the economy seems to be taken as something that is handed down from Heaven and on which the Government can have no effect. The Secretary of State said that the Government can simply provide supply-side polices to retrain and provide skills so that people can better be matched to jobs. She did not say how the Government could increase demand in the economy to create more jobs.
I therefore looked at whether the autumn statement contained anything about creating demand. I must admit that it contained a small dash of intervention in the form of construction projects, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes will create employment. But many of them do not start until 1996. I wonder whether that is a clue to the date of the next general election or simply my musing about what might be on the Prime Minister's mind.
The autumn statement was presented to the House in the aftermath of the most humiliating and expensive economic debacle that we have seen for a long time, when we were forced out of membership of the ERM. We then had the spectacle of a Government in search of an economic policy. The autumn statement is meant to be it. It contains just a little touch of expansion but also a public sector pay freeze. It is not clear to me—it has not been mentioned by Conservative Members—whether the autumn statement's overall effect will be deflationary because of the spending power that it will take out of the economy, and whether that will make unemployment worse. Time will tell.
The Government have been pursuing their own ideological dogmas and have been content to let unacceptably high unemployment persist. I want to discuss how that affects my local area. It is apposite that I discuss that matter after last week's announcement of the final closure date for the Cammell Laird shipyard, which is to be next July if the Government and Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. are allowed to proceed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness pointed out, he is in a similar position. Birkenhead and Wallasey have been built up around one industry. When that industry is threatened with closure, the results are catastrophic for the surrounding area.
I applaud and join my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead in his determination to ensure that the yard does not close. We shall do our level best, with the help of the community, agencies and, I hope, the Government to ensure that it has a future as a shipbuilding yard, out of VSEL's control, to maintain skills and jobs in that important area.
Wallasey and the Wirral were much weakened by the monetarist experiments of the 1980s. Indeed, 15 per cent. of the manufacturing industry in that area disappeared during that period. We now have another turn of the screw, which will ratchet down unemployment even further in an area already weakened by the Government's economic mismanagement. If the yard goes, almost 1,000 direct jobs will go immediately. Up to 6,000 other service jobs will go as an indirect result of the closure. Some 600 local firms that have supplied the yard will be at risk. During its history, Cammell Laird has been notable for always going to local firms for supplies. Consequently, the effect of its closure on the local community will be all the more devastating because of its acceptable and responsible purchasing pattern.
The local borough council estimates that £30 million of spending power will be taken out of the local economy.


One in seven people is out of work in the area. The official unemployment figure for Wallasey, where many of the people who work in Cammell Laird live, is almost 14 per cent. In addition, because of the cost of unemployment, retraining and other issues that have been mentioned, it is estimated that the closure will cost the public purse £111 million in the first year. It is economic madness to close the yard and put out of work one of the most skilled work forces in the country, given that the industry is likely to be revived in the world market within a couple of years. We have some of the best shipbuilding facilities in the world. Because it is so mad, the Government will probably decide to let it happen.
The Wirral area has 19,000 people on the dole before the potential economic holocaust that the closure would unleash. Wallasey has above average unemployment, with 18 per cent. male unemployment, 7 per cent. female unemployment and an overall level of 14 per cent. There would be a 2 per cent. increase immediately if the shipyard went. Moreover, 37 per cent. of that unemployment is long term—people who have been on the dole for more than a year. I meet constituents who have been out of work for most of the decade and have little prospect of a job.
Another disturbing aspect of unemployment in the area is the large number of youths unemployed. People in their mid to late 20s have never worked since they left school. It is easy to imagine why we have one of the worst drug problems outside Edinburgh and London. It must be connected with the despair and hopelessness that accompany years of unemployment with no prospect of getting out of it. That should concern hon. Members on both sides of the House. We must reintegrate people who feel that they have been forgotten and neglected, that the Government do not care about them and that the political system excludes them. Unless we do, we are simply racking up problems for the future and must deal with the economic and political whirlwind that will come about if we ignore it now.
When the Government first came to power, the then Prime Minister, on the steps of 10 Downing street, used a quote by St. Francis of Assisi. I remind hon. Members of what she said:
Where there is discord may we bring harmony. Where there is error may we bring truth. Where there is doubt may we bring faith. Where there is despair may we bring hope.
That is none out of four. Unless the Government do something to deal with those serious and persistent issues and social problems caused by the high unemployment that they are creating, that quote will remain the sick joke that it represents to most people who are on the dole or live in fear of it and the problems that it brings.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that the wind-up speeches are to begin at 9.20 pm. There are four hon. Members hoping to catch my eye, and I hope that each speaker will bear that in mind.

Mr. Michael Bates: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I can assure Opposition Members that no Conservative Member underestimates the human tragedy of unemployment. I hope that we can have a constructive debate—we all recognise the tragedy that we are discussing and want to find the best way to reduce unemployment. I have no

doubt that the 5,324 constituents of Langbaurgh who are unemployed are my top priority. We are debating the best ways of getting those people back to work.
I am interested by the motion, which states that it
condemns the Government's Autumn Statement for its total failure to tackle the jobs crisis".
That does not square with what the Confederation of British Industry, chambers of commerce—including that in my district—the Federation of Small Businesses, and all the small business men to whom I have spoken have said. They think that the autumn statement will be good for business and for jobs.
What, exactly, is the Labour party condemning? Is it the fact that we are maintaining low inflation—at 3·6 per cent? Is that what you are condemning? Are you condemning our commitment to capital spending, which was heavily cut under the last Labour Government? Is it the provision of the Jubilee line extension at a cost of £1·9 billion? Do you condemn that? Is it the maintenance of the house building——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not condemn anything.

Mr. Bates: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Does the Labour party condemn the housing spend—the 35 per cent. increase in the Housing Corporation capital resources amounting to £2·3 billion? Does the Labour party condemn the £900 million that will be released by the change in capital rules for local government? Does it condemn the £2·1 billion worth of capital projects or the £95 million to benefit the inner cities? Does it condemn the cut in interest rates to 7 per cent.—the lowest level for 15 years? A I per cent. cut in interest rates saves British business and industry £1 billion. Does it condemn the £7 billion or £8 billion of investment in business?
Does the Labour party condemn the maintenance of our commitment to uprate benefits for the casualties of the international recession? Does it condemn the increase of unemployment benefit in line with inflation? Does it condemn the increase in child benefit and state pensions in line with inflation? Is that what the motion condemns?
Does the Labour party condemn the Government policies for their popularity? Popularity has never come easy to the Labour party. We can mention many fine achievements, but the Labour party considers other aspects and condemns them in its motion. Such factors include the abolition of car tax which, it is estimated, will provide demand for an extra 70,000 units next year. The Labour party condemns the increase in capital allowances—40 per cent. for the first year—a policy which has gone down well with small business men. It condemns the £750 million in extra export guarantees introduced in the autumn statement.
The autumn statement was popular, but was short of one item. When I travel around my constituency and the north-east of England, business men tell me that they are short of confidence. People need confidence to go out shopping and to invest. I believe that confidence is the only ingredient missing from the British economy.
The Labour party's contribution to today's debate will do nothing to enhance confidence—if anything, it will continue to run down the country. That is nothing new. I have lived in the north-east all my life, and I have lived cheek by jowl with the Labour party and the effects that it


has had on the north-east, such as unemployment. I know how the Labour party has managed to run down the north-east.
The Labour party says that the north-east needs Government investment, but it does not mention the £3·5 billion Government spending and investment since 1979. Does the Labour party mention the £216 million already received, or about to be received, from European funding between 1991 and 1993? Does it mention the Northern Development Company or explain how that company has played its part in attracting £2 billion since 1985, creating or safeguarding 35,000 jobs?
The call from the Opposition is that we should do more. I believe that we have. Let us consider the jobs that the Government have relocated to the north-east of England. Some 1,700 jobs in the Department of Social Security were created at the Longbenton complex in Newcastle, which already employed 7,000. What about the 400 jobs created by the Government's location of the Inland Revenue in the north-east? What about the 250 tax jobs in Sunderland? What about the 350 jobs at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which has been moved to the Newcastle business park? What about the licensing branch of the Department of Trade and Industry, which has been located at Billingham in Cleveland, with the creation of 61 jobs? Some 50 jobs were created at the Department for Education when it moved to Darlington in County Durham, bringing the total number of jobs at that site to 800.
However, we need more jobs. The work of the urban development corporations has been important. The Government sponsored them with £80 million in the current year. They have attracted £500 million worth of private business to the north-east. Is that enough? Apparently, it is not. What about the training and enterprise councils? Teesside TEC, funded by the Government, helped to set up 500 new businesses during the past two years, which is welcome. That shows what the Government are doing to help create jobs and alleviate unemployment in the north-east of England. What about the inward investment that has been attracted to the north-east of England? Clearly, across the water in America and Japan, people have a higher regard for us than have some Labour Members.
What about inward investment? Nissan UK has invested in a plant in Sunderland, with 3,000 jobs and a further 1,800 jobs planned. The Fujitsu plant represents £600 million worth of investment, creating about 1,500 jobs. Hashimoto Formings, the Japanese car component manufacturer, is investing £10 million in the north-east.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend recall that the former Leader of the Opposition described Japanese investment as "alien jobs"?

Mr. Bates: I am grateful for that intervention. I am sure that such comments go down a storm in Sunderland, Washington, Newcastle and Middlesbrough, where so many people depend for their livelihoods on jobs that come from Japan—and we are grateful to receive them. The Japanese certainly appear to have investment confidence in the people of the north-east; it is time Opposition Members showed some of the same confidence.
We will not sit back and see our region run down by the Opposition. I want to tell the House about Sommer Industry, the French car component manufacturer, which is setting up business in Washington and creating 100 new jobs. Sterling Research Group, of the United States of America, is expanding its pharmaceutical research centre at Alnwick, with 160 jobs. TRW Thompson, a German-based car valve manufacturer, is to create 225 jobs at a new plant in Washington. Lite-On, of Taiwan, is coming to Ashington with 150 jobs. Synpac Chemicals of Taiwan is to take over part of the Glaxo site, creating 200 jobs.
It is not just overseas manufacturers who have confidence in the north-east, however. We take pride in the work that we do there for these companies, and for companies from this country as well. British Airways has moved to Newcastle business park, with 700 new jobs to be in place by 1994. MTM, the Cleveland-based chemicals group, has invested £100 million in Teesport, creating 600 new jobs. Bioprocessing Limited, of Consett, has invested £2·5 million in a new factory, thereby creating 100 jobs. Glaxo has opened a new £9 million production unit at Barnard Castle; it provides 1,500 people with employment.
Another engineering firm has set up a new offshore manufacturing unit which will provide 600 people in the north-east with employment. The MetroCentre, with its multi-million pound investment and 3 million sq ft of shopping space, includes jobs for 6,000 permanent employees. Then there is the development of the multi-million pound Doxford international business park at Sunderland—a development which will go ahead over the next five years at a cost of £250 million, generating up to 3,000 jobs. The development of the new Newcastle business park will create another 5,000 jobs. Investment in the park has topped £150 million.
This is the news from the north-east, the face of the north-east that we want to show, not to the businesses of this country—they know why they come to the north-east by the coach-load—or to the companies of Japan, America, Germany or France—they have confidence in us—but to the Opposition. They could do with some confidence in the north-east. Instead of running us down, they should be selling the benefits of locating there.
I want to end by coming a little closer to home, to Teesside——

Mr. Tipping: Is not unemployment in the north-east the highest in this country? What message is going out to the long-term unemployed there? What about the fact that there is no capital investment in the north-east? What about the message of no hope? And what do the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues intend to do about it? Absolutely nothing.

Mr. Bates: That just proves that Opposition Members cannot see a silver lining without spotting a big dark cloud wrapped around it. The hon. Gentleman comes straight out of the Opposition school of management which believes in attracting business by running down the product. The Opposition might aspire to that view, but our international competitors do not buy it. So, while business is coming to the north-east, creating jobs and giving people some hope of a livelihood, it might perhaps be just as well if Opposition Members kept their thoughts to themselves for the moment.
To return to Teesside, there was a publication by the Evening Gazette there, with the headline
The region with a £4 billion smile".
That was just last month. It was an excellent publication which I commend. There is a £32 million development at Preston Farm; and a £50 million development at Teesdale business park with an £80 million development at Teesside Park and the new Enron power station. There is a £50 million development by MTM and further developments of £16 million at Belasis technology park and of £1·2 billion by Amoco.
That is the evidence of what British business and international business think about the north-east and about this country. We have the fundamentals in place. The autumn statement was a success and we need to say that, because we have concern and compassion, the best thing we can do is to send out the message that we have confidence in British business and in the north-east and will back it to the hilt.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: The Opposition are condemning not the ingenuity of British people but the Government's handling of the employment situation. Let us be clear about that. In particular, when Conservative Members ask what we condemn let me tell them what I condemn. Jaguar motor cars in Coventry have systematically, over the past two years, started announcing redundancies, with 200 only last week. I condemn the fact that companies like Rolls-Royce and GPT have introduced systematic redundancies and Cadbury is struggling to maintain its labour force at present levels. Lucas is also struggling to maintain its labour force. I also condemn the answer to me last week from the Minister for Industry, when I asked about the output comparisons over the years. He told me that between 1981 and 1992 output has risen by only 0·05 per cent. What an indictment of the years of Thatcherism and of the present years of John Major's stewardship.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman referred to John Major. He must not do that. He must say "the Prime Minister".

Mr. Cunningham: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should have said the Prime Minister. I hold the Prime Minister and his predecessor responsible for the situation.
If Conservative MPs were to talk to business people and the Confederation of British Industry about the autumn statement they would get a different reply. They see the consequences as not giving much confidence to business people. Do hon. Members realise that small businesses are going to the wall at the rate of 10 per cent. a year? Since the autumn statement it has been disclosed that unemployment in the west midlands has gone up by 3 per cent. since September.
Those are the real facts, not the Walter Mitty world in which Conservative Members seem to live.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Last Friday I attended a meeting of Coventry and Warwickshire CBI, which was attended also by some of the national leadership. They were asked, not by me but by a Conservative MP, what they thought of the autumn statement and if they regarded it as wonderful. Their

response was that the autumn statement was irrelevant. Those were their words. It had created no confidence in the leadership that there was any hope of recovery.

Mr. Cunningham: That reinforces what I was saying; the business community very much has that opinion.
Equally I condemn the fact that there are just under 300,000 people unemployed in the west midlands and that is rising. In answer to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), I condemn equally this Government's cuts of more than £7 million in local government spending in Coventry. Hon. Members should look at the effect of that on employment and on small businesses. Government policies in the west midlands are repeated throughout the country and will not help employment. Members of the Government Front Bench seem to find that amusing, but I do not think that unemployment is amusing.
Conservative Members said that training and enterprise councils should be supported, but many people can tell them that the problem with TECs is that they are underfunded. I know people who went to a jobcentre and were told to take a TEC course, only to discover that the courses advertised were not available. That is the kind of experience that the unemployed are suffering as a result of the Government's training policies, particularly in relation to the young.
Generations of young people have either never had a job or will, because of the abolition of wages councils, be working for slave wages. Those are the real issues that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh should address, rather than try to denigrate members of my Front Bench over what they might or might not have said. He should not try to imply that my right hon. and hon. Friends were in any way downgrading Britain. We are downgrading the Government, but we praise the British people for putting up with a Government who, having inflicted unemployment on this country, seem powerless to do anything about it.
The Government also stand condemned over the peace dividend. The Soviet Union no longer exists, and the Government had 14 years of negotiations in which to provide for the switch from defence industries to those having a peaceful purpose. They did nothing about that. The Government stand condemned in the eyes of not only this country but Europe.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: It was interesting to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham), but his contribution did not quite reach the standard of his predecessor, which my hon. Friends and I always enjoyed. I am only sorry that the hon. Gentleman's predecessor did not do slightly better, because that might have let in the Conservative candidate at the general election. No doubt we shall hear more from the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East before we are finished.
I apologise for not being present for the start of the debate, but I shall read earlier speeches in Hansard with interest. Last week, I appeared on BBC television in the north-west with the Labour employment spokesman, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), and I am glad that he did not make then his accusation about employers being scum, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) made reference.
I had intended to base my speech on Labour still being very much the tool of the trade unions, but I begin to wonder whether that would not be such a bad thing. I am glad that the new investment by Toray Textiles is supported by Manufacturing Science Finance, which said that "things are moving on". I wonder whether that is true of members of the Labour Front Bench.
As the unions are beginning to adopt new attitudes, perhaps it would be a good thing if Labour kept its links with trade unions rather than trying to abandon them, as it seems to be thinking of doing. However, it seems to have a slim chance of doing so when people such as Mr. Tom Sawyer state, "No say, no pay," and while unions contribute most of the money on which the Labour party depends.
I am glad that MSF supports inward investment, because it is so important to this country. Britain is now the most favoured location for inward investment in the world. No doubt that is because we have a strong enterprise culture after 13 years of Conservative government and the advantages of low taxes, our language, and our position in the European Community. All that makes us the No. 1 country for overseas investment outside the United States for the Americans, and for the Japanese and Germans after the United States.
That is shown by the success of Inward, the north-west development agency, which records as much success in the first half of this year as in the whole of last year. The Royal Institute of International Affairs states that the total stock of worldwide direct investment will more than double between 1988 and 1995. There is no recession there.
We are fortunate that this country is the preferred one for investment which is to grow on that scale.—[Interruption.] I do not see why the Opposition should laugh and reject the scale of investment by large international companies that is occurring.
Take Glaxo, one of the leading manufacturing companies in the world. The Opposition seem to think that manufacturing is not profitable, but Glaxo is extremely profitable. It exports medical drugs all over the world. The Japanese may make more motorbikes than we do, but we certainly make a lot more pharmaceuticals than they do; we export to them. Glaxo has just announced that it is creating a new £17 million state of the art manufacturing and packaging base at Speke. This is an example of what can be done with large companies investing in this country because it is so attractive for them.
Regional selective assistance has worked well for the north-west since 1983, when the map was redrawn. I hope that my hon. Friends will think carefully before altering the status at present enjoyed by my own constituency and other areas in the north-west. Unemployment in the north-west in 1983 was 3·1 per cent. more than for Great Britain as a whole. The latest published figures show that unemployment in the north-west is only 0·7 per cent. more than for the country as a whole. That shows that regional selective assistance has done much to reduce the unemployment rate in the north-west relative to the country as a whole. In my own constituency, 4,433 new jobs were created in small firms employing between one and 25 people between 1987 and 1989 as a result of our policies, which have encouraged small firms.
I draw the attention of the House to a publication that came out yesterday from the National Westminster bank, an economic survey by Mr. David Kern, who is very much respected. I recommend hon. Members to look at the figures which are quoted there for regional trends, which show how well the north-west and the north as a whole have done relative to the south. Making a prediction for 1993, Mr. Kern says that he expects
the northern regions to again outperform those in the south, although regional growth differences will be less pronounced.
That is more evidence that Government regional policies have borne fruit. The fall in gross domestic product in the south of the country has not occurred in the north.
The number of new firms registered for value added tax shows an increase of 1 per cent. in the north-west for the last full year, 1991, although there has been a decline in the south-east. Mr. Kern is predicting that there will be further increases in the number of firms registered in the north-west. [Interruption.] I do not know why hon. Members laugh; small firms provide jobs. I rather think that they are not very keen to hear their Front-Bench spokesman. If they wanted to hear her, they would not be intervening and thus presumably cutting down the amount of time she has to speak. However, I should be very happy to take an intervention if that is what they want.

Mr. William O'Brien: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that this litany of all the wonderful things that are supposedly happening in this country belies the fact that we are in the middle of a recession and suggests that the Government do not understand that there are real problems with British industry, particularly manufacturing industry? They are destroying not only people's lives through losses of jobs, but the whole basis of Britain's economy.
While the Conservative party continues to voice a litany of minor things that are happening in the economy, it misses the greater picture, which shows that our economy is in desperately serious trouble. Unless this is addressed, Parliament will not start to make policies that will get the economy out of this recession.

Mr. Thurnham: The electorate chose the Conservative party to govern the country because the country really would be in a mess if Labour were allowed to introduce its anti-employment, anti-enterprise policies. There is no doubt that, in that event, we should find ourselves in the predicament that the hon. Gentleman describes. If the Conservatives espoused the policies of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras—if we were opposed to enterprise, and called employers scum—we would have reason to worry about the future; but the present Government have introduced policies to help companies to expand, and, in particular, have helped new companies to take on employees. An example is the success of Bolton Business Ventures. The difference between the figures relating to Bolton and those relating to Bury reflect the good work done by Bolton's enterprise agency. Perhaps more should be done to set up new firms in Bury.

Mr. Lewis: Bolton Business Ventures, of which I was one of the first directors for two years before I became a Member of Parliament, was created by a Labour council.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to describe to the House the presentation given by the Central Lancashire Engineering Employers Association to


Members of Parliament from the area only last week. He managed to stay for about 20 minutes; his Conservative colleagues did not get there at all.

Mr. Thurnham: I shall not digress to discuss what the Engineering Employers Federation said in a paper which was prepared before the autumn statement, and which is therefore completely out of date. I have been asked to keep an eye on the clock, so I shall confine myself to saying that there is evidence that regional selective assistance works. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind when looking at the map.

Ms. Joyce Quin: This has been a wide-ranging debate. Opposition Members in particular have expressed considerable concern about the extent of unemployment, and the economic problems that we face.
Most Conservative Members have supported the Government's policies, although we have heard one or two coded criticisms. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) refer to the undervaluing of manufacturing in recent years: Opposition Members strongly agree with that. I was disappointed, however, when the Secretary of State again trotted out the weary argument that, by talking about the level of unemployment, Opposition Members were somehow talking the country down. It sometimes seems that the Government would like to use that as an excuse for engaging in no debate about the economic situation and unemployment. We cannot pretend that jobs are not being lost, but let me emphasise that Opposition Members are not talking the country down; rather, the Government have brought the country down through their disastrous economic policies.
The gravity of the position has been borne out strongly by the figures that have been cited, especially by Opposition Members. Apart from unemployment, the small number of job vacancies is disturbing: about 29 applicants are chasing each vacancy. A couple of weeks ago, one of my local papers—The Journal (Newcastle)—stated that a staggering 3,000 people were chasing jobs in a new supermarket that was being opened in Whitley bay, Tyne and Wear. The company concerned soon ran out of job application forms, which is a sad reflection on the provision of job opportunities not just in that part of the country, but in almost all other parts.
A striking feature of the current unemployment level is that it clearly affects all areas, not just those that have been traditionally saddled with the scourge of unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) cited Basildon; let me cite Colchester, in whose travel-to-work area unemployment has increased by 171 per cent. in 18 months. It is estimated that it will grow by a further 19 per cent. by December next year, which is a higher rise than that predicted for Britain as a whole. The Essex men and women who voted Tory at the election—fortunately not all did—must rue the day that they helped the Government back into office.
It seems that the Government have cured our deep-seated regional problems by presiding over an economy in which all regions are now experiencing economic decline. That came home to me dramatically this week when I, a Tyneside Member of Parliament, received a plea to support assisted area status for East Sussex. As parts of East Sussex and Kent scramble for assisted area status, I wonder how long it will be before the entire

country asks for it. The sad fact that all areas of the country are experiencing unemployment does not mean that the Government are absolved from producing an active regional policy. My colleagues and I believe that such a policy is still important.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield mentioned the work of the Welsh Development Agency, but I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), when referring to the Northern Development Company, did not explain that the Government were originally hostile to that initiative. It was formed by the local authorities, businesses in the north and the trade unions. It was only as it became successful that the Government decided to support it. Regional policy is important, and I pay tribute to the other development agencies which have done much valuable work. The Government should follow our advice on regional policy by expanding the agencies' work and should bring about economic decentralisation, which is badly needed.
It has been pointed out today that all sectors of our economy have been losing out badly. Unlike the deep recession experienced in the early 1980s, all parts of the country and all sectors are now affected. The job losses which have already occurred in the banking sector and those which are predicted in that sector in the next couple of years will total about 250,000, which is a huge number in a sector on which, we are told, we would be relying for the future.
What remains of our manufacturing and industrial base is also being savagely hit. That was made evident in some of my hon. Friends' speeches, for example, those of my hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) who spoke in some detail and with great feeling about the plight of the Cammell Laird shipyard—sentiments with which I wish to associate myself. It is a tragedy that the yard is closing at this time. The Government should intervene to allow the work force to put into practice their ideas for the continuation of the yard.
What my hon. Friends said was backed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) who also discussed the problems facing his area and the defence industry, on which his town is almost wholly reliant. I believe that VSEL at Barrow and Cammell Laird and companies such as Swan Hunter would benefit considerably from Government intervention on their behalf. There are practical measures which the Government could take to help such companies. They could, for example, reopen with the European Community the issue of whether warship yards can get access to intervention funding. We should like the Government to take that step.
Some hon. Members—Conservative and Labour—referred to the coal industry and mentioned their fears for the future. Of course, that issue is very much on our minds at present.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that coal mining areas will not only lose 100,000 jobs and that we shall have to depend on wives working to keep the homes going but that the wives are also losing their factory jobs?

Ms. Quin: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Perhaps the Minister will give us an estimate of the total number of job


losses if the pit closure programme were to go ahead. We know that not only the 30,000 jobs but many related jobs and jobs belonging to the families of miners and the communities in which they live will also be lost. We should like the Government publicly to apologise to the miners whom they were prepared to see made redundant with only two days' notice. Do the Government understand how that decision shocked public opinion, not only here but in parts of the European Community and even in the United States where the decision was widely reported?
The constituents to whom I have talked have a gut reaction about the decision on the coal industry. They ask how the Government can possibly allow such a valuable national resource to be thrown away. They ask whether the Government really care about the unemployed when they were prepared to add 30,000 people to the dole queue in such a cavalier and dismissive manner.
Hon. Members have referred to the plight of particular groups of the unemployed. They have referred to the long-term unemployed and to the alarming rise in their number. Although I was glad to hear the Secretary of State announce some measures for the long-term unemployed, I should like her to increase her efforts in that respect. Long-term unemployment is a terrible scourge in our society. There are ways in which the Government and the various agencies could prevent unemployed people from becoming long-term unemployed. The Government need to respond in detail to some of the initiatives proposed by bodies such as the Council of Europe.
Many hon. Members mentioned the alarming problem of youth unemployment. I quote a figure given to me by Tyneside training and enterprise council. The council says that 26 per cent. of people aged between 18 and 24 have no previous work experience. That depressing figure shows how difficult it is for youngsters to get work experience in the middle of a recession when so many companies are sacking people rather than taking them on.
Another aspect of unemployment is the position of older workers who are trying to gain employment. It was depressing when I talked last week to a constituent, a lively and skilled man in his early 50s, who has written literally thousands of job applications. He has often not even had a response. In the days of the citizens charter it should perhaps at least be incumbent on employers to respond to people who send applications to them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred to women in the labour market. Women are also losing out badly in the recession. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) said, we must remember that the official statistics underestimate the number of women who are unemployed. The Government should take the position of women in the labour market firmly into consideration. It would help if the Secretary of State and employment Ministers talked to people at the Equal Opportunities Commission in Manchester which, I understand, they have not visited in recent months.

Mr. Tim Smith: Has the hon. Lady seen the results of the 1991 census which show a huge increase over 1981 in the number of adult women now in the work force?

Ms. Quin: We know that there has been a big increase in women's employment, especially in part-time employment and, unfortunately for many women, in low-paid employment about which it would be nice to hear some concern from Conservative Members.
Many of my hon. Friends have mentioned working conditions. Indeed, we could have a whole debate on that worrying subject. If Ministers look at all the various early-day motions on the Order Paper, they will see that many express hon. Members' concern about the poor working conditions in Britain today. It is depressing that the Government seem to want to compete in Europe on the basis of poor working conditions and poor wages. I do not believe that that is the way forward and I believe that the Opposition's message has been clear. We want unemployment to be halted, but we also want the best future for Britain in high-quality and high-skill jobs, and not in low-paid jobs in sweatshop conditions.

Mr. Tim Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Quin: No, I will not give way again to the hon. Gentleman. I am short of time because many speakers wanted to take part in the debate. That has left my time rather short.
I refer the Government to the interesting debate in another place on unemployment. There was an impressive degree of unity on all sides of that Chamber about the measures needed to tackle unemployment. Contrary to what some Conservative Members have said tonight, the Opposition have proposed many measures that we feel would help tackle the current unemployment problem.
It was clear in the other place that a boost to the construction industry was the most hopeful way forward. That point was echoed in Labour's alternative autumn statement. We proposed a boost to the construction industry far in excess of the rather timid measures proposed in the Government's autumn statement.
A boost to the construction industry is considered to be a better way forward than other ways to revive the economy upon which the Government have tended to rely in the past—for example, consumer spending. It is hard to imagine that consumer spending will get us out of the recession. Too many people who bought on credit have had their fingers badly burnt. Given the poor state of our industrial base, a consumer revival would also tend to be spent on imported goods.
It is also unrealistic to expect the private housing market to pick up and provide a boost. In the midst of a recession and at a time of record housing repossessions, people are hardly in the business of purchasing new houses. A programme of public works, construction and infrastructure referred to by many Opposition Members is very important for the future. The Government should do a great deal more in that respect.
The Government should also join their European colleagues in providing a similar boost to construction and infrastructure in Europe as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said that he thought we should have a renewed Marshall plan in Europe. When I consider the problems in eastern Europe and, in particular, the tremendous environmental degradation in those countries, I would like to see an environmental Marshall plan in which many countries join together in a trade-and-aid package to improve the environment of eastern Europe.
Companies in Britain would be in a good position to take advantage of such a plan. It is unrealistic to expect eastern European countries to have the hard currency to buy products, but such a trade-and-aid package would be useful in future and is something that we should consider very seriously.
The Secretary of State referred to discussions in the European Council of Ministers and admitted that, for the first time, there was serious discussion about unemployment at the Social Affairs Council just a few days ago. We believe that that is an incredible admission. The British presidency should have been pushing unemployment from the moment that we assumed the presidency in June.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment said in June that
our first priority must be to ensure that there are measures to create jobs".—[Official Report, 9 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 133.]
It is now December and precious little seems to have been achieved. We can only hope that the Edinburgh summit will produce something in that respect.

Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

Ms. Quin: I am afraid not, because time is short and the Minister needs time to reply.
My colleagues made a great deal of the great social cost of unemployment. They referred to the strain on families and the soul-destroying effect on communities. The relationship between unemployment and crime was also mentioned. As usual, Conservative Members pooh-poohed that and tried to claim that we were equating the unemployed with criminals.
It was refreshing that in a recent debate in the other place, the Government spokesman stated clearly that there is a strong link between unemployment and crime. I am far from suggesting that the unemployed are criminals, as I see too many unemployed people in my constituency who are victims of crime rather than perpetrators of crime. However, I believe that crime can and does flourish in conditions of unemployment, poverty and desperation.
Having listened to the contributions of Conservative Members, I am far from convinced that the Government appreciate the sheer scale and acute gravity of the situation that faces us. It is very difficult to see the Government's economic strategy or their strategy for tackling unemployment. Their previous economic theories have failed and have been replaced by uncertain and tentative measures of the kind outlined in the autumn statement. The slogan "There is no alternative" has been replaced by "There is no direction." However, there has been some stealing of Labour's clothes. Perhaps it is the Government's new strategy to steal Labour's clothes. It is the only strategy that I can find in the current circumstances.
The Minister may have seen the current issue of Scottish Business Insider in which various fund managers talk about current economic policy. Mr. Maclean, the managing director of Scottish Value Managements, made this point about the stealing of Labour's clothes: "They"—the Government—
already seem to be raking over the Labour manifesto knowing … that there's going to be a tremendous social and fiscal concern as redundancies rise … I think what we may see is a Government that's incorporating a lot more of Labour's policy into its programme over the next few years.

The general public will believe the genuine article rather than the pale imitation.
Even more tragically, the Government could have invested in our country when they were running a huge surplus. If they had invested in infrastructure and so on in the years when we were running a budget surplus, we would be better able to withstand the recession and the economic and social effects of it. If we had taken the necessary measures in more prosperous times, when we were running a budget surplus and had the profits from the North sea, we would not be in the difficult position that we are at present. The Government did not take the necessary measures when they should have done, and for that they will not be forgiven.
The Conservative party's election promises on the economy, which were made only six months ago, have been shown to be an absolute sham, and the Government have been totally discredited. The Government should admit their failure, apologise to the electorate and preferably go to the country again before they do any more damage.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I agree with the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) about the difficulties of giving youngsters the opportunity for placements in a recession. I also agree with what she said about the discrimination that exists against older workers. My only disappointment is that while she was in the European Parliament she was unable to get the European institutions which still place age limits in their advertisements for recruitment to change their policy. Frankly, to see the European Commission and other institutions advertising for all sorts of people at all levels, saying that people over the age of 35 need not apply, is not only distressing for those of us over the age of 35 but completely unacceptable.
The hon. Lady' s speech was interesting because it revealed a new type of snobbery on the Labour Benches. Opposition Members are part-time snobs who sneer at part-time jobs. Part-time jobs are every bit as good as any other jobs. The vast majority of people with part-time jobs say in survey after survey that they would prefer to have part-time jobs. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is muttering. He complained about Conservative Members having more than one job, and falsely accused my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim). If the hon. Gentleman is worried about any hon. Member having two jobs, he should put his own backyard in order and deal with those hon. Members who are still Members of the European Parliament.
We have heard much from hon. Members on both sides about unemployment. Families all around the country—those in work and those out of work—are gravely worried about the present position. I very much share the strength of feeling and the sympathy that has gone out to those who are affected. I understand the pressures, uncertainties and unhappiness that unemployment can bring.
Unemployment is a problem which Governments across Europe face, and it arises from a recession which is world wide. The Government are clear about what we must do. We must help our companies to compete in world markets. That means getting inflation down, controlling public expenditure and creating a stable economic


framework and opportunities for unemployed people to improve their skills and get back into work. We start from a firm base.
I know that Opposition Members cannot bear to hear good news about the economy. Let me give the hon. Members for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) and for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) a few facts. The United Kingdom has a higher proportion of its adult population in work than any other EC country except Denmark. Employment has grown in the United Kingdom by 1·8 million during the nine years that I have been a Member of Parliament. But I heard no references to that striking growth in job opportunities in any of the speeches made by Opposition Members.
In the decade which was dominated by the last Labour Government, self-employment stagnated. In the Conservative decade of the 1980s, it grew by more than 1 million. None of that happened by magic. It happened because the Conservative party knows that jobs are created by the initiative of business and the commitment of those who work in those businesses. Jobs can come only from incentives, competitiveness, efficiency and enterprise.
The Opposition pretended tonight that they could create jobs if only they were in government. They would tax; that would destroy jobs. They would increase interest rates; that would destroy jobs. They would regulate and interfere; that would destroy jobs. The only jobs that they would create would be jobs for the boys, which the Leader of the Opposition has discovered in his constituency, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) said.
Our way is to work with business and to work for individuals. We fought to remove the burden of outdated and unnecessary legislation and regulation which is so corrosive of opportunities for employment.

Mr. Henry McLeish: What about the donation to Tory party funds from Thames Water?

Mr. Forsyth: When Thames Water was a nationalised concern it was inefficient. It is now so successful that the Opposition plan to tax it to pay for the promises that they make every day of the week.
We had to put in place effective and innovative ways of helping unemployed people back to work. We are not and we shall not be complacent. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has announced half a million more opportunities to help those who are unemployed.

Mr. McLeish: Where is the cash?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman asks where is the cash. Opposition Members are always interested in cash. They are interested in the input, but never in the output. We are concerned about what comes out at the end. I am talking about half a million new opportunities through job clubs, training and assistance to start up in business. That is direct help, yet it was not even acknowledged by the Opposition tonight, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
The Opposition's record does not bear examination. How many places did they provide for young people? They provided just 9,000 training places for young people at a time when, because of the 1960s baby boom, more

youngsters were entering the labour market than at any time in recent history. We provided 290,000 places. So let us have no more lectures from Opposition Members about what we need to do.
Of course, losing a job is a traumatic experience. But most people remain unemployed for a relatively short period—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not true".] I do not know how Opposition Members expect to build up the confidence of people who have lost their job by making remarks like that. The fact is that two thirds of those who become unemployed leave the register within six months. That is thanks to the excellent work carried out by the Employment Service throughout Britain. What a pity that no Opposition Members felt it appropriate to pay tribute to the excellent work that those people do.
Some people have real difficulty in finding work. They are entitled to expect extra support and help. Some have particular difficulties with literacy and numeracy. As I confirmed to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), help with literacy and numeracy is part of the package introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
For the long term, the Government's education reforms offer hope for the next generation. That hope would have been extinguished if the Opposition, supporting the teaching unions, had had their way. We face increasing worldwide competition from not only our traditional competitors but the expanding economies of South America and the Pacific rim. Worldwide competition needs to be beaten by a working population with ever-increasing levels of skill and maximum adaptability.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) rightly highlighted the importance of small businesses as the engine of job creation, and the fact that interest rate reductions brought about by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been of the greatest importance to them. I agree with her citicism of the European Community which has concentrated on adding to the burdens on business as part of its social affairs programme instead of focusing on the needs of the unemployed and the means for creating jobs. During her presidency of the Council, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has changed that, and I am sorry that Opposition Members felt unable to give her credit for that singular achievement.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill emphasised the importance of the maxim, "The devil makes work for idle hands." That is why it is so important that young people are either in work, training or education and that they are not able to claim benefit, with nothing to apply themselves to, as Opposition Members have argued.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) told us of his experience as an employer and confirmed that wages councils destroy jobs. He also highlighted the importance of the pharmaceutical industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) drew attention to the fact that there are fewer employment opportunities for young people and women in EC countries that have enforced policies favoured by the Labour party.
The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) spoke of his concern for employment and the importance of work for the shipyards. I could not help thinking how relieved he must have been that a Labour


Government did not take office as the fourth Trident, on which so many of his constituents depend, would have been cancelled.

Mr. Hutton: Does the Minister not agree that it was the opinion of my constituents that their best prospect for secure employment would be the return of a Labour Government in April, because they elected a Labour Member of Parliament?

Mr. Forsyth: I recall the hon. Gentleman bouncing into the headlines during the election campaign, by contradicting the shadow Foreign Secretary and saying that it was rubbish that Labour would cancel Trident, so I am not convinced by his protestations.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) called for tax increases to fund increased public expenditure, but last month the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said:
We are not proposing to raise income tax or national insurance at this stage. Further increases at this time would be a mistake.
The hon. Lady should sort out her position with that of the Labour Front Bench. I agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East in his assessment of how disastrous tax increases would be, but I sympathise with the hon. Lady who cannot see where the money to pay for the hon. Gentleman's promises will come from. Perhaps she shares the views of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who in The Guardian accused the shadow Chancellor of not understanding the elementary laws of arithmetic. I shall leave the hon. Lady to sort that matter out.

Dr. Lynne Jones: It is right that Labour should continue its policy of advocating an increase in taxation for those who received the highest tax benefits as a result of past Government policies. However, I understand that that issue is to be considered by the Commission for Social Justice and then we shall return with our policies on the issue.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady's problem is that she supports one tax policy while the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East supports another, but she should not be too concerned about that, as it has been a traditional position in the Labour party for four successive general election losses.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead welcomed the Labour Front-Bench's commitment to full employment but said, rather honestly, that that was the easy part and that the party had to work out the policies to deliver that or face a fifth election defeat. I fear that he may be disappointed. He spoke movingly of the desperate problems in his constituency and of the situation at Cammell Laird, the details of which I shall pass on to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Only once in one lifetime of 70 years have a Labour Government managed to leave office without having doubled unemployment. It is rather like Haley's comet—one gets to see it only once in a lifetime. Since 1979, Opposition Members have opposed every training programme we have introduced and criticised every measure that we have taken to help the unemployed get back to work. They opposed employment training, youth training, employment action and now they appear to be opposed to training for work.
Every new training initiative since 1979 has been greeted by a chorus of condemnation at trade union conferences, and when the organ grinder cranks out the familiar tune, the monkey leaps into action. The trade union that has invariably taken the lead has been the Transport and General Workers Union, the biggest union in the country and the union which sponsors the hon. Member for Gateshead, East.
What policies do Opposition Members claim to have to reduce unemployment? When Opposition spokesmen appear on television, they talk airily about an industrial strategy. What do they mean? They are afraid to tell us, but we know what they mean. They mean a return to the massive, wasteful subsidies of the 1970s, subsidies paid at the behest of trade union leaders to firms, preferably in the public sector, to persuade them to produce goods and services that nobody wants to buy.
When Opposition Members talk of industrial strategy, they mean interference in the plans of private sector companies, in the spirit that the man in Whitehall always knows best.
That is not all, for it would mean a training levy on all employers, a tax on jobs and a national minimum wage which even the Fabian Society estimates would cost 800,000 jobs—and would cut 2 million jobs if the trade unions ensured that existing pay differentials were preserved.
Of course, Opposition Members are committed to accept each and every proposal for a new job-destroying regulation that comes out of Brussels—the social charter, the social action programme and now the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty. The Opposition would embrace them all, no matter what the price in lost jobs and inward investment. If it advances socialism, no price is too high for them.
There are 17 million unemployed people in the European Community. The Opposition's response is to raise the cost of creating new jobs right across the Community, to impose new burdens on employers and to smother enterprise in a mass of new regulations. The truth is that the Opposition have nothing to offer Britain. That is why they have lost four general elections in a row.
The policies that the Opposition opposed in the past—the sale of council houses and the privatisation of loss-making state enterprises—have all proved successful. They respond not by admitting their mistakes but by threatening to tax the profits of the new successful enterprises and thus threaten their growth and employment.
Opposition Members attack the Government for controlling the spending of receipts from council house sales, receipts that would not even be there if they had had their way.
Their former leader, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), let the cat out of the bag during an interview on BBC2 last Saturday. He admitted that the Labour party's promise in the 1987 general election to create 1 million new jobs in two years by a massive programme of public expenditure was "appealing but not believable."
What the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to realise, in common with Opposition Members tonight, was that after the general election in 1987, unemployment fell by more than 1 million in less than two years. It did so without any of Labour's crushingly expensive new programmes. We did it by ensuring that the economic


conditions were right for the creation of new jobs, by keeping taxes and public expenditure down, by deregulation and by reducing burdens on business.
What we have heard from the Opposition Benches in this debate has been simply a relentless and systematic attempt to paint the most pessimistic picture of the current employment situation. It is the privilege of Opposition Members to whinge and moan, but I say in all seriousness that they have done no service to the unemployed of this country by taking such a narrow, partisan approach in the debate.
It is time that the Opposition recognised that the only way to reduce unemployment is through the creation of new jobs, which depend on British companies making and selling the goods and services that people want to buy. New jobs depend on companies overseas investing in this country.
Let Labour Members leave the House with their former leader's judgment ringing in their ears—"appealing but not believable".

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 309.

Division No. 97]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chisholm, Malcolm


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clapham, Michael


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Allen, Graham
Clelland, David


Alton, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Coffey, Ann


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cohen, Harry


Armstrong, Hilary
Connarty, Michael


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Austin-Walker, John
Corbyn, Jeremy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corston, Ms Jean


Barnes, Harry
Cousins, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Cox, Tom


Battle, John
Cryer, Bob


Bayley, Hugh
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beckett, Margaret
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Beggs, Roy
Dafis, Cynog


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Darling, Alistair


Bell, Stuart
Davidson, Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benton, Joe
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Denham, John


Betts, Clive
Dewar, Donald


Blair, Tony
Dixon, Don


Blunkett, David
Dobson, Frank


Boateng, Paul
Dowd, Jim


Boyce, Jimmy
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bradley, Keith
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eagle, Ms Angela


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Enright, Derek


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Etherington, Bill


Burden, Richard
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Byers, Stephen
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Caborn, Richard
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Flynn, Paul


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Don (Bath)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Foulkes, George





Fraser, John
Mahon, Alice


Fyfe, Maria
Mandelson, Peter


Galbraith, Sam
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Galloway, George
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gapes, Mike
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Garrett, John
Martlew, Eric


George, Bruce
Maxton, John


Gerrard, Neil
Meacher, Michael


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Meale, Alan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Michael, Alun


Godsiff, Roger
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Gordon, Mildred
Milburn, Alan


Gould, Bryan
Miller, Andrew


Graham, Thomas
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morgan, Rhodri


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morley, Elliot


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Gunnell, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hain, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hall, Mike
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hanson, David
Mudie, George


Hardy, Peter
Mullin, Chris


Harman, Ms Harriet
Murphy, Paul


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Henderson, Doug
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Heppell, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Hara, Edward


Hinchliffe, David
Olner, William


Hoey, Kate
O'Neill, Martin


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Home Robertson, John
Parry, Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Pendry, Tom


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pickthall, Colin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pike, Peter L.


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pope, Greg


Hoyle, Doug
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
 
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hutton, John
Purchase, Ken


Illsley, Eric
Quin, Ms Joyce


Ingram, Adam
Radice, Giles


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Randall, Stuart


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Raynsford, Nick


Jamieson, David
Redmond, Martin


Janner, Greville
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rogers, Allan


Jowell, Tessa
Rooker, Jeff


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooney, Terry


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Khabra, Piara S.
Rowlands, Ted


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ruddock, Joan


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Salmond, Alex


Kirkwood, Archy
Sedgemore, Brian


Leighton, Ron
Sheerman, Barry


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lewis, Terry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Litherland, Robert
Short, Clare


Livingstone, Ken
Simpson, Alan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Skinner, Dennis


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


McAllion, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McAvoy, Thomas
Snape, Peter


McCartney, Ian
Soley, Clive


McKelvey, William
Spearing, Nigel


Mackinlay, Andrew
Spellar, John


McLeish, Henry
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Maclennan, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David 

McMaster, Gordon
Steinberg, Gerry


McNamara, Kevin
Stevenson, George


McWilliam, John
Stott, Roger


Madden, Max
Strang, Dr. Gavin






Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wigley, Dafydd


Tipping, Paddy
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Trimble, David
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Turner, Dennis
Wilson, Brian


Tyler, Paul
Winnick, David


Vaz, Keith
Wise, Audrey


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Worthington, Tony


Wallace, James
Wray, Jimmy


Walley, Joan
Wright, Dr Tony


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wareing, Robert N



Watson, Mike
Tellers for the Ayes:


Welsh, Andrew
Mr. Jack Thompson and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Wicks, Malcolm





NOES


Adley, Robert
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) Cormack, Patrick


Aitken, Jonathan
Couchman, James


Alexander, Richard
Cran, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Amess, David
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Ancram, Michael
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arbuthnot, James
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Devlin, Tim 

Ashby, David
Dickens, Geoffrey


Aspinwall, Jack
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkins, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Dover, Den


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan, Alan


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dunn, Bob


Baldry, Tony
Durant, Sir Anthony


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dykes, Hugh


Bates, Michael
Eggar, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Elletson, Harold


Bendall, Vivian
Emery, Sir Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Booth, Hartley
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Faber, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fabricant, Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bowis, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fishburn, Dudley


Brazier, Julian
Forman, Nigel


Bright, Graham
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forth, Eric


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Budgen, Nicholas
Freeman, Roger


Burns, Simon
French, Douglas


Burt, Alistair
Fry, Peter


Butcher, John
Gale, Roger


Butler, Peter
Gallie, Phil


Butterfill, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Garnier, Edward


Carrington, Matthew
Gill, Christopher


Carttiss, Michael
Gillan, Cheryl


Cash, William
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Gorst, John


Churchill, Mr
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Clappison, James
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Grylls, Sir Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Colvin, Michael
Hague, William


Congdon, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Conway, Derek
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hanley, Jeremy





Hannam, Sir John
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Neubert, Sir Michael


Harris, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayes, Jerry
Norris, Steve


Heald, Oliver
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ottaway, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Page, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Patnick, Irvine


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Horam, John
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pickles, Eric


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Redwood, John


Hunter, Andrew
Richards, Rod


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jenkin, Bernard
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Key, Robert
Sackville, Tom


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shersby, Michael


Knox, David
Sims, Roger


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Soames, Nicholas


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Speed, Sir Keith


Legg, Barry
Spencer, Sir Derek


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lidington, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lightbown, David
Spring, Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lord, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Luff, Peter
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew
Stephen, Michael


Maclean, David
Stern, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Allan


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Madel, David
Sumberg, David


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sweeney, Walter


Malone, Gerald
Sykes, John


Marland, Paul
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thomason, Roy


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Merchant, Piers
Thurnham, Peter


Milligan, Stephen
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mills, Iain
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Tredinnick, David


Moate, Roger
Trend, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Twinn, Dr Ian


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moss, Malcolm
Viggers, Peter


Needham, Richard
Walden, George






Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Willetts, David


Waller, Gary
Wilshire, David


Ward, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Waterson, Nigel
Wolfson, Mark


Watts, John
Wood, Timothy


Wells, Bowen
Yeo, Tim


Wheeler, Sir John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Whitney, Ray



Whittingdale, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Wiggin, Jerry



Wilkinson, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises the need for the United Kingdom economy to remain competitive at a time of world recession; rejects the job destroying policies of Her Majesty's Opposition including the national minimum wage; notes that the United Kingdom has the second highest proportion of its population in employment of any country in the European Community; congratulates the Government on the new opportunities afforded by the Autumn Statement; and welcomes the Government's new package of 1·5 million employment and training opportunities providing more help than ever before to help unemployed people get back into work.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

ESTATE AGENTS

That the Estate Agents (Specified Offences) (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 2833), dated 11th November 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

Mink Keeping

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I beg to move,
That the Mink Keeping Order 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.
The order is made under the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932. It is concerned with ensuring that mink are kept securely under arrangements designed to prevent escapes. The Act itself provides for the keeping of non-indigenous species of mammals to be either prohibited or controlled by licence on the basis of their destructive habits. It does not provide for the keeping of mink to be prohibited for any other reason.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about ferrets?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. This order is not concerned with ferrets, a much-loved national institution, particularly on the Labour side of the House.
The order replaces existing controls for Great Britain which expire on 31 December. If the order were not to be approved, the result would be, not a prohibition on mink keeping, but the absence of any controls on the keeping of mink, including the crucial security requirements.
I hope that it is clear that the welfare of mink is not a subject relevant to the mink keeping order and therefore not relevant to this debate tonight. However, I understand and appreciate that the welfare of fur animals is a subject about which many hon. Members quite rightly have concerns and on which they receive a considerable amount of correspondence, most of which, regrettably, ends up on my desk. I should therefore make the Government's position on welfare quite clear.
In April 1989 the Farm Animal Welfare Council, to whose advice the Government attaches the first importance, published a statement on the welfare of mink and fox, the two species farmed for their fur in this country. While expressing its disapproval of the current methods of fur farming, the council did not recommend that they should be stopped. In August this year the council confirmed that it has not changed its position on this difficult matter. At about this time, the Council of Europe——

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister just mentioned the Farm Animal Welfare Council. In its report it said that the systems employed did not satisfy some of the most basic criteria for protecting the welfare of farm animals, so what conclusion may be drawn from that? Surely that no mink should be kept for farming purposes.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Member is correct in believing that the council concluded that it did not approve of this sort of farming, but it did not feel that there was sufficient evidence to ask for it to be banned. If I may, I shall come to that matter in more detail later.
At about this time, the Council of Europe was also examining the question of fur farming. In 1990, it adopted a welfare recommendation on fur-bearing animals under the convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes.
That recommendation lays down general requirements for the welfare of all fur species. The requirements cover


such things as the need for sufficient numbers of stockmen, inspections and general provisions for enclosures in which the animals are kept and management practices. Those requirements are supplemented by appendices laying down more specific details for each type of fur animal.
The European Commission said that it will use that recommendation as the basis for a welfare directive that will set standards for the keeping of fur-bearing animals throughout the Community. However, I am the first to acknowledge that that recommendation from the Council of Europe will not alter significantly the husbandry practices currently used. The Council of Europe, as with the Farm Animal Welfare Council before it—to follow the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—found a lack of scientific evidence on which to base requirements for change.
That does not mean that sensible standards cannot be set that improve on the Council of Europe recommendation. It is the Government's clear intention to press for the highest-possible welfare standards for fur farming to be adopted on a Community-wide basis when the Commission's proposals are negotiated in Brussels.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does not the Minister agree that, while waiting for the EEC to produce a directive, the Government should take action to ensure that mink farms are maintained at a decent standard? My information is that the standards on some farms are appalling.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is right. We should and do maintain high standards. The state veterinary service and ADAS inspect fur farms every year to ensure not only that the husbandry is correct but that the animal welfare standards are right. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a positive supporter of Europe, and will agree that in such instances it is better to achieve a pan-European initiative rather than forge ahead alone.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that we are dealing with sentient animals and that it is absolutely obscene to keep them in barren, grotty, small cages? Will he explain why he is not prepared to recommend that mink keeping and mink factory farming should be phased out as quickly as possible?

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend has a fine record on animal welfare issues, but he ought to know that we are not debating that matter tonight. The debate centres instead on the security required for the keeping of mink. Many people hold views similar to those of my hon. Friend, and we will listen very carefully to them.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister will confirm that the standards in the Council of Europe report, which I hope will be emulated by the Community at an early date, could serve as the minimum. Nothing in the report prevents the Government from improving on those standards, which were aimed at countries whose standards are perhaps even worse than those found in this country.
Will the Minister, before he sits down, address the question of the adequacy or otherwise of the security requirements? Over the years, a substantial number of mink have escaped, but nobody appears to have been brought to book.

Mr. Soames: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He has done an enormous amount of animal welfare work in the Council of Europe, for which we are very grateful. I shall deal with the security issue at some length, if I am allowed to make progress with my speech.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is right to say that the standards implied by the Council of Europe are minimum standards and there is nothing to stop the Government building on them. In fact, other Community countries are considering doing precisely that. We shall watch with care what transpires.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: The Minister will be aware of the Swalesmoor farm in my constituency and of the problems which it created for me as a constituency Member of Parliament—and which I was not allowed to mention in the recent court case. Apart from the smells, and so on, a major problem was that the farm was not secure and the animals escaped. They wiped out indigenous animals in whole areas. I appealed to the Minister and to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and went through the whole system, but it seemed that no one had any responsibility for ensuring that that hell hole of a farm adhered to the odd regulation that did exist. I know that the Minister has seen the photographs and needs no convincing of what a mess that place was. I know that we will get a fairer hearing in this Chamber than we did in the recent court case.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady has considerable experience in this matter because of her constituency interest, but I have to say that the allegations about mink escapes in this country are very much overdone and I have to take issue with the hon. Lady on that point.

Mr. Brian Wilson: This is perhaps an appropriate point at which to ask the Minister why the Isle of Arran, in my constituency, is excluded from the general prohibition on mink keeping on the islands, in precisely the same way as some 20 years ago. Because a mink farm was established on Arran and the mink escaped, there is a problem already with mink there. It seems to me extremely odd logic to say that, because there are wild mink which people are trying desperately to get rid of, the problem should at some future date be compounded by allowing another mink farm on Arran, whereas it would be impossible on every other Scottish island.

Mr. Soames: It is certainly not an act of personal spite on my part towards the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a high regard, but I intend to come to the Scottish question a little later. As it is a very important matter, we feel that we should deal with it separately.
Farmed fur animals are protected in the same way as other farmed livestock by the general provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. This makes it an offence to cause unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress to any livestock on agricultural land. In addition, the Protection of Animals Act 1911 makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any captive or domestic animal. It also requires the killing of fur animals to be undertaken with great care and all possible humaneness.
Officers of the state veterinary service monitor fur farms, as they do all other livestock farms, to check on compliance with legislation. When visiting fur farms, they


use the Council of Europe recommendations as a guide for their inspections. The Mink (Keeping) Order 1987 prohibits absolutely the keeping of mink on all offshore islands of the United Kingdom which have neither mink farms nor a wild population, and in the Scottish highlands where the same situation exists. The keeping of mink elsewhere is permitted only under licence.
The new order continues the policy which has been adopted by successive Governments since 1962. It seeks to, and does, balance the interests of a small sector of farming activity with the need to protect other farmers and wildlife from the very substantial potential damage which escaped mink could cause.
This order renews the existing powers to control mink for a further five years. Mink will continue to be subject to the provisions of the Mink Keeping Regulations 1975, as amended. These lay down stringent requirements covering such matters as the cages or containers in which mink must be kept, the buildings or enclosures containing the cages and, very important, the perimeter fence surrounding the housed mink.
I now come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Wentworth about the detail of security arrangements. It may be helpful in discussing this order if I draw hon. Members' attention to just how detailed these requirements are. Mink must be kept in cages or other containers constructed to prevent escape within an enclosure or building which also satisfies the legislation. Enclosures must be bounded by a guard fence made of wire netting or welded mesh of a specified gauge and mesh size. It must be at least 1·2 metres high above ground level. The base of the fence must be buried in the ground to a depth of at least 300 mm and turned outwards at the bottom at right angles for at least 150 mm, or be embedded in a trench of the same depth at the bottom of which is a foundation at least 150 mm deep of either concrete or consolidated hardcore of brick or concrete rubble or similar solid and durable material.

Mr. Tony Banks: This is all very interesting, and I am sure that if every farm complied with the regulations there would be no escapes. I have a catalogue of photographs of Swalesmoor—I have shown them to the Minister—which make it clear that all the regulations that the Minister has talked about are being blatantly ignored, yet Swalesmoor is given a licence by his Department. It is all very well for him to give us assurances; in reality, they simply do not apply to places such as Swalesmoor. What is he going to do about it?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman may say that it is all very well, but I am dealing with the order, as the House expects me to. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make his own speech—and I have no doubt that he will be called—we shall deal with the points that he raises.
As I have already said, it is a grossly exaggerated assumption that mink farms are constantly experiencing escapes. That is simply not true. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to show me the photographs to which he refers, and he knows very well that I was not happy with what I saw. If he makes his own speech, I shall deal with his points later.

Mr. William Ross: The Minister said that the fence should be buried and turned outwards.

Surely it should be turned inwards, that being the side from which the mink would normally be coming. A fence should be turned outwards to keep rabbits out of a plantation, so surely it should be turned inwards to keep mink in.

Mr. Soames: The British mink is a crafty little varmint. We put up fences to fox him. Anyway, that is what it says in the brief, and I am not prepared to gainsay the admirable advice given by excellent officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
At the top of the fence there must be flat sheet metal, at least 300 mm deep, attached to the inside of the wire netting and to any fence placed inside the enclosure, to form a continuous baffle leaving no gap between the wire and the sheet metal. These stringent requirements are designed to ensure that, even if mink manage to escape from their cages or containers and evade the cage traps which must by law be set in each building or enclosure where mink are kept—and the House should know that mink are extremely easy to catch—they will be unable to escape into the countryside through, under or over the guard fence.
Thirty years ago, when licensing was introduced to this country, there were about 700 mink farms. In 1987 there were only about 62, with 100,000 mink. Now there are only 27 establishments, with approximately 47,000 mink. Standards of security are high. Mink farmers are obliged under the terms of their licences to report escapes to the Ministry's regional service centres.

Mr. John Gorst: May I ask my hon. Friend, in all seriousness, whether his statistics give us any idea how many mink are not under lock and key?

Mr. Soames: Let me reply, in all seriousness, that the country already has a substantial feral mink population. Mink are a pest, and it is therefore extremely important for farms to maintain a high standard of security. The technical details that I have read out are not a matter for levity, as the Opposition consider them, but a serious matter which should command the assent and support of the whole House.
Standards are high. As I have said, the terms of their licence oblige mink farmers to report escapes. In the five years since the latest review, only one report of an escape has been received from a mink farmer. [Laughter.] It is all very well for the House to mock, but this is a serious matter. The House should listen with care and attention to the origin and nature of that mink break-out. The escape was occasioned by the storms of 1989, not by lax security. Despite all the allegations, there has been no confirmed evidence presented to my Department of unreported escapes from specific farms. Nevertheless, there is a serious potential for long-term and short-term damage from escaping mink. The continuation of licensing, with an inspection at least annually, ensures that mink farms give priority to physical security. That is the point to which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West rightly attaches such importance.
There is one small change from the previous order which affects Scotland and has been approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The change is to include Harris, Lewis and associated small islands as an area of the country where there is a total ban on the keeping of mink.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) asked why Arran was excluded. There is a natural feral population of mink on Arran—as one would expect from the hon. Gentleman's constituency—so there is no point in applying the regulations. As we do not believe in applying regulations except where they are necessary, the hon. Gentleman will understand the sense of the order.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I am a keen angler and have been fishing in some remote parts of Scotland—the southern uplands, around my own area and the highlands. As I see it, there are no natural mink; they have been imported and they are ecological disasters. I am serious; I am not laughing because I see ducklings and a host of other animals and birds slaughtered by the score. The mink are vicious, but nobody seems to take responsibility for them unless they interfere with game birds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] This is when Conservative hon. Members start getting interested. The best way to cure the problem is to stop them being kept under present conditions.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point, and I share his interest in angling. It is true that the feral population of mink in this country can and does cause considerable damage. There are proper methods for trapping them, but I do not think that I can deal with the hon. Gentleman's point during the debate on the order. However, I should be happy to discuss it with him on another occasion. I agree that mink are a serious problem for anglers.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most effective and humane way of killing mink in the wild is to hunt them with hounds such as the West Yorkshire mink hound? If many Opposition Members had their way, such hunting would be banned.

Mr. Soames: It would be a bad day if it were banned, but, although I am a keen supporter of mink hounds, I do not think that even the greatest proponent of mink hunting would claim that they are a very effective method of controlling mink. They nevertheless fulfil an important role in the countryside and their right to do so 'will be defended to the end by the Government.
In 1970——

Mr. Wilson: rose——

Mr. Soames: I must get on. Would the hon. Gentleman please—oh, very well then.

Mr. Wilson: It is not unreasonable to ask the Minister to deal with the issues because I believe that he is making a factual error. The circumstances of Harris, Lewis and Arran are the same. On Harris and Lewis irresponsible people opened mink farms 20 or 30 years ago and the rest of the community has been left with the problem. On Arran there was a mink farm 20 years ago. I have just phoned Arran and was told that its one benefit was that it got rid of the rats—which no doubt explains my presence! The benefit for the community of saying that there would never be another mink farm there would be undoubted. There may also be an indigenous population. However, surely that is splitting hairs. The problem in Arran is identified as the fact that there was a mink farm there which left the legacy of wild mink.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman, who is an expert on surface rodents, seems to see the issue in black and white and without a fine regard for the truth. In Harris and Lewis, there is the Harris and Lewis mink control group. It is attempting to raise funds to carry out a programme of trapping. The initial proposal was for a three-year programme costing more than £65,000. However, the group is having difficulty raising funds and is now planning a reduced programme.
We have taken this step for Harris and Lewis because Scottish Natural Heritage has asked us to do so. We are anxious to help our friends in Scottish Natural Heritage and in the Scottish Office on any occasions when we can. If the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North wishes us to consider matters on Arran, we shall be happy to do so. I look forward to having a discussion with him to that end.
In 1970, there were about 70 mink farms in Scotland alone. By that time, mink farming in Harris and Lewis had ceased for some years. In 1987, when the previous review was carried out, eight farms operated in Scotland. Now only two hold licences. Given the passage of time and the greatly reduced number of licences, it seems right now to prohibit mink keeping in Harris and Lewis. As I have said to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, during consultation the proposal was put to us by Scottish Natural Heritage in support of efforts being made locally. That course of action has also been warmly endorsed and recommended by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
I apologise for detaining the House for so long. I can confirm that the issue of licences, at the discretion of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will be exercised with the greatest care. Requests for licences from new establishments will be considered in principle before applicants incur expense in preparing for mink farming. If it is appropriate, additional controls over and above those specifically laid down in mink keeping legislation will be contained in any licence issued. A licence will be refused if there is real doubt that it is possible to reduce the risk at a particular site to acceptable levels.
The Act provides for the revocation of licences and we expect licensees to take their obligations extremely seriously. Annual inspections will ensure that they do so. I ask the House to approve the order.

Mr. Elliot Morley: The Minister has mentioned that the debate is on the order and not on the issue of welfare or on the prohibition of keeping think. I protest that, unlike the consultation in 1987, this consultation did not give the option of the banning of mink. The consultation offered was simply the choice of continuing with the Mink Keeping Order or ending it. Faced with such a choice, most organisations would naturally support the maintenance of the order. What we should be discussing is the prohibition of mink farming and of Arctic fox fur farming.
The order has been inadequate over the years and has been poorly applied. The intention of the order, as the Minister said, was to prevent escapes of animals covered by the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932. In that sense, the order has been a failure. So many mink have escaped over the years that I am surprised that there is not


a line of ferret-faced predators listening to the debate behind the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "There is."] I will not be drawn on that.
It is important that the order is considered not only in terms of how it applies now, but in terms of how it will affect conservation issues and welfare issues. Can the Minister explain why the Isle of Arran, which has been mentioned, and the Isle of Wight have not been covered by the prohibition? There is no established feral mink population on the Isle of Wight. There is one mink farm, although I am not sure whether that still operates. The mink farm on the Isle of Wight was established without permission and permission was granted retrospectively. The farm is very near the Newtown site of special scientific interest which has a range of important ground-nesting birds.
The Minister made it clear that he has accepted the advice of Scottish Natural Heritage in respect of the isles of Harris and Lewis. However, he is ignoring the advice of English Nature which recommended to the Government that there should be no keeping of mink on the Isle of Wight. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point.
In respect of the Isle of Arran, I must confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said. There is no difference between the isles of Harris and Lewis, where there are feral mink populations and eradication programmes, and the Isle of Arran. It would be a great help if the Minister made it clear that no mink farms would be established on the Isle of Arran in future. Eradication programmes could remove the problem of mink in that area in future.

Mr. Bowden: The hon. Gentleman referred to not establishing new mink farms in a particular area. Does he agree that it is absolutely essential that there are no new mink farms anywhere? While my hon. Friend the Minister told us about the great reduction in numbers, something which we all welcome, the sooner all mink farms have gone, the better.

Mr. Morley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is Labour policy that mink farming should be ended at the earliest opportunity.
When we talk about the welfare implications of mink, I wonder why the Minister ignores the findings of the Farm Animal Welfare Council in relation to mink keeping. He quoted from the council's findings, but the House may be interested to hear what the council had to say about the keeping of mink and fox:
Mink and fox have been bred in captivity for only about 50 to 60 generations and the Council is particularly concerned about the keeping of what are essentially wild animals in small barren cages. The Council believes that the systems employed in the farming of mink and fox do not satisfy some of the most basic criteria which it has identified for protecting the welfare of farm animals. The current cages used for fur farming do not appear to provide appropriate comfort or shelter, and do not allow the animals freedom to display most normal standards of behaviour.
That is a powerful indictment of fur farming from the Government's own advisory body.
With regard to the time scale for domestication, mink have been kept for about 60 years in terms of intensive farming. Dogs have been kept for 12,000 years and chickens for 4,000 years. However, even after 4,000 years, chickens have not adapted to intensive, battery conditions.

Solitary animals such as mink, which are clearly much wilder than chickens, are expected to be reared in such conditions.
We recognise the need for registration and the need for the order. However, the argument is that, even as they stand, the regulations have not been effective. I understand that not one mink farmer has been prosecuted under the regulations. It comes as no surprise to the House to learn that there has been only one report of escaped mink since 1987, as it is not in the interests of mink farmers to admit that mink have been escaping. There is an analogy in that respect with trout farms. The Minister will be aware of current court proceedings instigated by anglers over the difficulty in getting trout farms to admit that rainbow trout have escaped into rivers. It is hardly surprising that mink farmers do not admit that there have been escapes.
There are two basic arguments against the keeping of mink and Arctic fox and they are on conservation and welfare grounds. On conservation grounds, we have already established that the effect of escaped mink on wild mammals and bird species has been disastrous. In certain parts of the country, water voles have been completely wiped out by feral mink.
Mink farms also result in diseases such as aleution disease and distemper which can be transmitted to other animals, notably otters. When mink escape and settle into a suitable habitat, they can establish themselves and live in reasonable harmony with the existing ecology. However, if escapes continue to occur, the escaped mink displace the feral population, with potentially disastrous consequences, and attack domestic stock.
It is clear that, as long as mink farms are allowed to continue in this country, escapes will continue. I have seen the photographs of Swalesmoor farm near Halifax, which have been mentioned. Those photographs clearly show mink running loose within the farm. A number of people who live adjacent to the farm confirmed on numerous occasions that mink had been running loose in the area and attacking farm stock. The photographs show that the fur farm in question is in a poor state and undoubtedly is a miserable place in which to rear any animal of this type. A shed with more than 4,000 mink in it had not been inspected by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for three to four years, whch demonstrates that the Mink Keeping Order in its present form is not necessarily enforced effectively.
That brings me to the welfare considerations of keeping mink. Wild mink are solitary animals. In the wild they normally have a territory which is two and a half miles long. In farm factory conditions they are forced to live in unnatural intensive conditions in cages which are 24 in long, 15 in wide and 12 in high. Respected animal behaviourists such as Dr. Desmond Morris have said that:
Because of the intensive keeping of animals like mink, the result of this degree of confinement is that animals exhibit all the typical reactions of wild creatures to a restrictive and deprived environment. They perform stereotyped patterns of movement and various forms of self-mutilation. These are clear signs that the captive animals are under stress.
That is from a report entitled "Mink Factories", which was published jointly by Lynx and Compassion in World Farming. I could also refer to the Farm Animal Welfare Council and its findings on the keeping of animals.
I argue that the keeping of mink in their present form is in breach of articles 3 and 4 of the European convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. There are five main principles in terms of keeping animals:


first, freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition; secondly, appropriate comfort and shelter; thirdly, the prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment of injury, disease or infection; fourthly, freedom from fear; and, fifthly, freedom to display most normal patterns of behaviour. I argue that the second, third and fourth criteria are not met in the keeping of mink.
As articles 3 and 4 of the European convention deal with the natural behaviour of animals and seek to ensure that they are given the opportunity to display natural behaviour, it is clear that mink farming breaches that convention. Given that overwhelming evidence, how can the Minister justify the continuation of fur farming in the United Kingdom? The Minister referred to the Council of Europe report. It is clear that if that report evolves into a directive, it is unlikely that the mink farms in this country will be able to meet such a directive.
I draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 143 which calls for an end to the keeping of mink. That motion has been signed by 226 hon. Members, including many of the Minister's hon. Friends who are sitting behind him. Fur farming is reviled by the public, as the mail bags of many hon. Members show only too clearly.
I also draw the attention of the Minister to a recent survey which found that 78 per cent. of the public opposed fur farming. Fur is clearly out of fashion, because people rightly reject the infliction of such stress and misery on animals for the sake of the vanity of a few people. That view is reflected in both the decline in the number of farms—to which the Minister referred—and the decline in the price of pelts.
Given the decline in the number of mink farms in Britain, is it not time to act? Is it not time that the Minister took the opportunity not merely to cut out the consultation on the option of banning mink farms but to introduce an order that bans them?
While mink farms exist, they must be properly regulated. The Opposition have tabled an amendment calling for the phasing out of mink farms at the earliest opportunity. I appreciate that our procedures did not allow such an amendment to be selected for debate. We argue that the order does not go far enough. Unless we receive assurances from the Minister tonight, first, that there will be a moratorium on all new fur farms, in the sense that the Minister will refuse to issue new licences, and, secondly, that existing fur farms will be phased out as soon as possible, we shall have no option but to vote against the order, not because we do not want fur farms to be regulated but because we want an order that will bring about the end of the vile and inhumane exploitation of animals for no real or useful purpose.

Mr. William Ross: As the House will have noted, the order applies only to Great Britain. However, we have feral mink in Northern Ireland and, like other hon. Members, I have an interest in the matter.
I listened with care and attention to what was said by both Front-Bench spokesmen. The debate deals with not only the welfare of farmed mink but the problems associated with escaped feral mink. The Minister talked about a natural feral population. By definition, feral populations cannot be natural. They are the descendants of escaped mink. As the Minister said, they pose a threat of substantial damage.
It is clear from the experience of those who live in the countryside that escaped mink have caused considerable damage in all parts of the United Kingdom and even further afield. We should not allow that to continue because the feral mink do not simply die out; they breed and live in the wild. Their numbers are constantly increasing. In some areas they have increased to the point at which the population is stable. The population can be stable only at the expense of the local indigenous species, which we in Britain want to maintain.
No one has mentioned so far that the order is descended from the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932. As the Minister will be aware, that Act covered only musk rats. All the other animals covered by subsequent orders were added at a later stage. The list of animals covered by orders is long. The 1932 Act was followed by the Northern Ireland legislation in 1933. The list is long and all the species included are species that none of us would love.
The list includes the grey squirrel, which was included by an order in 1937. Non-indigenous rabbits were included in 1954. The Coypus (Prohibition of Keeping) Order was introduced in 1987. I am sure that the Minister will have looked at that order in preparing for the debate and will have noted that it placed an absolute prohibition on the keeping of those animals in Great Britain. That species has vanished from the countryside—or at least I hope that it has disappeared because it caused considerable damage in the east of England. The Mink (Keeping) Order 1987 has lasted for the past five years.
The 1932 Act referred to non-indigenous animals. But I suggest that we should not close our minds to the wider difficulties of bringing other non-indigenous creatures within the scope of the legislation. The intention of the original Act was to license the keeping and to prohibit the importation of the animals. The Act also laid down another duty, which at least shows that our predecessors had some concern about the animals—a duty to destroy escapees—or it took refuge in the old parliamentary device of saying "may" take the necessary steps to destroy them. Those steps could be taken directly by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or by the council in whose areas the escapees existed but, as far as I can tell, that has never been done.
From what the Minister and other hon. Members have said, it is plain that there are many escapees, which have bred, and that there is a stable population of these vicious and destructive animals.
One of the Minister's comments should not be quickly forgotten. He said that mink were easy to catch and I have also been told that by one of my relatives who lives in Canada, and has caught them with a trap line. They are obviously easy to catch there too. If that is so, why have no consistent and assiduous efforts been made to wipe out what is, by all accounts, a destructive animal? It should not be all that difficult—all that it would take is time, effort and a bit of money. It would pay rich dividends and, for the good of all our indigenous species, it is long overdue.
Many other species have been introduced into this country and released, and are having an unfortunate effect on indigenous species, for example, catfish, rainbow trout and farmed salmon. As the Minister will recall, fish were dealt with fairly comprehensively throughout the United Kingdom by changes in the law some years ago. Those changes were wise, very welcome and have done some good.
I am sure that, like myself, the Minister reads country magazines that deal with wildfowling and shooting. If he has not noticed it with his own eyes I am sure that his officials will have drawn to his attention the problem caused by various types of geese, which are hybridising and will cause the most enormous damage and difficulties. That problem should be dealt with.
Furthermore, I believe that there are populations of escaped kangaroos and wallabies in England. Those are not the sort of animals that one would normally think of as traditional in the English countryside.
A large number of different species of deer have been running loose in this country for a long time—some are useful and others are not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the subject. Will he return to mink, please?

Mr. Ross: I have just come to the end of my list, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful that you allowed me to go so far. If you had allowed me a moment more, I would have said that some unwelcome plants have also been introduced, but I shall leave those.
Some animals are more acceptable than others and we can live with some of them. I suppose that we can live with almost any strange creatures, provided that they are present only in small numbers, but that is not true of mink or other destructive animals, which should be destroyed. We can do that only by killing each and every one. That might not sit happily with some folk, but it is a fact of life that if we do not destroy them, they will do further immense damage to our indigenous species and will interbreed with closely related creatures—God knows where it will end.
All such animals are a factor in changing the ecology of our countryside. I hope that the Minister will consider my comments and will start down the road of eliminating them.
I intervened in the Minister's speech because I thought that, in the middle of the hubbub, he had missed something. He was reading out the technical specifications for burying wire underground to keep in mink and I believe that he said that the wire should be bent outwards. If that is the specification, and if it is not a misprint in his brief, then the specification is wrong. If it is bent outwards, the mink will simply dig out under it, whereas if it is bent inwards, the mink will not know, if it digs out, how to get back. I think I see the Minister nodding in assent, so I assume that there was a mistake in his brief. If there was not a mistake, I hope he will change the regulations.

Mr. Tony Banks: I know that the Minister has some sympathy for the arguments that are being advanced about the welfare of mink, but we had expected him to be rather more robust with his officials in terms of the assurances that he blandly read out from his brief—assurances that do not seem to match the reality of the situation.
The Minister said in reply to me that there had been one case of an escaped mink. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) asked in an excellent speech, in which he covered most of the salient

points, how can one expect mink farmers to report that some of their mink have escaped? It is like a speeding motorist going to the police and turning himself in. It might be an act of Christian charity and show respect for the law, but it would also be stupid in view of the penalties that would follow. So it is not satisfactory for the Minister to say that, because there has been only one reported case, that must mean that no other mink have escaped.
There was a litany of eye-witness evidence surrounding the case that Lynx presented in court regarding Swalesmoor. Many people in the vicinity of Swalesmoor testified to the number of times that they had had to send for the farmer from Swalesmoor to recapture mink that had escaped from his farm. It is true that they are easy to catch. That is because they have been half domesticated and their spirit is broken by the appalling conditions they must endure at Swalesmoor and, I am sure, at other fur farms.
It is nonsense for the Minister to say that mink have not escaped from Swalesmoor and elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said that one was seen in the middle of Halifax and had to be captured by environmental health officers from the local authority. Was that the one escaped mink that ended up on the records of the Minister's Department? My hon. Friends and I found the Minister's speech insufferably complacent in many respects and we expect him, after this debate, to toughen up his approach to his officials and his attitude towards the practices of some of the appalling mink farms.
The Minister said we were not debating the issue of mink and animal welfare. I do not see how one can avoid that issue, given the conditions at some mink farms. I find fur farming obnoxious and unacceptable and I regard the wearing of mink fur—other than by natural mink in the wild—to be naff and vulgar. People who go round wearing mink have more money than taste.
The Minister mentioned the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which drew attention to the fact that the systems employed in the farming of mink and fox—including white Arctic fox—do not satisfy some of the most basic criteria for protecting the welfare of farm animals. That should lead one logically to the conclusion that we should phase out all mink farms. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe pointed out, the original consultation paper leading up to the 1987 measure——

Mr. Soames: rose——

Mr. Banks: Let me finish the sentence, Minister. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is active and eager, but I would appreciate being allowed to complete the sentence.
One would have thought, under the circumstances, that the phasing out of mink fur farms would have been natural, and it has not been explained why the option of phasing out was included in the consultation paper leading up to the 1987 measure but was somehow excluded from the 1992 consultation process.

Mr. Soames: It may be convenient for the hon. Gentleman to know that neither the Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food nor any of its agencies has ever received any report of escaped mink from Swalesmoor.

Mr. Banks: I find that incredible.

Mrs. Mahon: My local Evening Courier contains photographs of a mink that escaped and was caught in the


centre of town. Most of the population was shocked and horrified because the environmental health officers clubbed it to death. There have been numerous such reports. Many complaints have been made to the local council and I am pretty sure that they have been reported to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Banks: I am beginning to feel sorry for the Minister because his civil servants must be either incredibly stupid or entirely negligent. It is apparent from all the evidence in the locality of Swalesmoor that numerous escapes have been reported. The Minister should stop simply taking assurances from his civil servants and start investigating in greater detail precisely what is going on on the ground.
It is difficult for us to accept the fact that the order excludes the Isle of Wight, which has a licensed mink farm, although it is currently free of feral mink. Lynx, the organisation which has done so much to draw the attention of the public and the House to the conditions within those appalling hell holes of factory farms, has made it clear that the Isle of Wight mink farm should be closed. It is in the immediate vicinity of Newtown harbour nature reserve, which is a site of special scientific interest and an internationally important site for nesting and migrating birds. Should any of those mink escape, the damage that they would do to that reserve is incalculable. It is amazing that the Minister is prepared to run such a risk in respect of the Isle of Wight.
Opposition Members have made it clear that there have obviously been escapes in the past, otherwise there would not be feral mink populations in various parts of the country. Minks have been escaping since 1929. I agree with the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) who said that the minks should be killed. I must admit that I feel a bit sorry for them, but, because of the destruction that they wreak on other species, a humane trapping programme should be adopted and the mink humanely destroyed.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Will my hon. Friend comment on the Prime Minister's crusade against bureaucracy and red tape? Does not that mean that mink farms should be prohibited rather than licensed? With licensing, either there will be no inspection, in which case there will be much cruelty and the hell holes to which my hon. Friend referred, or the Minister is way out of line with the Prime Minister's requirements, because much costly bureaucracy will be involved.

Mr. Banks: The Minister is trying to suggest that my hon. Friend's facial hair is a false mink beard. I assure him that it is natural and flourishing feral hair on Harry's face.
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I would not mind if that bureaucracy was working. The Minister has given us all the assurances which his civil servants wrote. He must test the issue for himself, not simply take assurances that clearly do not match reality. I have shown him the enormous album of photographs from Swalesmoor. If these are the result of annual inspections by his civil servants and inspectors, he should sack the damn lot of them because they are clearly taking their money under false pretences.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said, the inspectors managed for a number of years to miss a shed containing thousands of mink. It takes a very myopic inspector to miss a shed of such dimensions that it can enclose thousands of mink, but the Minister's inspectors managed to do so. What action did the Minister take against those civil servants who are clearly not doing their job? The pictures that I have show the sort of conditions that inspectors are prepared to accept when licensing the farms. The conditions are disgusting and unacceptable, and the Minister must change them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said that the mink is a wild, semi-aquatic animal, whose normal territory is anything up to 2·5 miles. The animals we are talking about are kept in rows in wire mesh cages that are 24 in long, 15 in high and 12 in wide. Mink normally avoid each other's company except at mating times because they protect their own territories. Given the amount of stress that they are under, it is no wonder that they go in for self-mutilation—they are bored. They are placed in conditions that are so unnatural they are totally obscene and unacceptable.
The order should be about the welfare of those animals. The state in which they are kept is unacceptable in this day and age. Why are we keeping them in such appalling conditions? Is it so that prune-like little old women and flashy, spivvy types can wear mink coats? There is no justification for that. Individuals' vanity is paid for by obscene suffering by animals.
We shall vote against the order, but the Minister must start checking the facts. I know him to be a reasonable person, and when he has checked the facts for himself, he might share some of the anger that I feel tonight. Then he will go into his Ministry and start tearing up his speech in front of the civil servants who wrote it, and tell them to get out and start earning their money.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The Front Bench teams have said that, with the leave of the House, they wish to begin the wind-up speeches a t 11.30 pm.

Mr. Paul Tyler: It is clear that there is widespread concern throughout the House and in many parts of the country about the continuation of mink farming, not least in the agriculture community, where it is regarded as a potential time bomb that is ticking away in the rural parts of the country.
As has been mentioned, at the time of the 1987 order, there was full consultation on a three-way choice: continuation or renewal, lapse of the order, or total prohibition. The agriculture community expected to be consulted on the options in the run-up to the current order, but they were not. They should have been.
Why did the Ministry remove the obligation to report the presence of mink at large in 1987? That obligation existed before 1987, but has not existed for the past five years and the system has been greatly weakened as a consequence. That is why so many hon. Members tonight have expressed their concern at the Swalesmoor case and others. Surely the Minister should give us an explanation as to why that case was not referred to his Ministry, rather than the other way round.

Mrs. Mahon: The Swalesmoor case has been referred to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I have done so at least twice. I have received unsatisfactory replies stating that nothing can be done about it. There must be a file on the Swalesmoor case gathering dust somewhere within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that contribution, as she has made my argument for me. Under the present system it is left to the breeders to report an escape. With great respect to the hon. Lady, it should not be left to a Member of Parliament to draw the problem to the attention of the Ministry—that is not our function; I was not trained for that job when I was elected to the House. At present, the breeders are the only people obliged to report an escape. Who has ever heard of a poacher going to see the gamekeeper and saying, "Gamekeeper, sir, I want to report that I have been poaching this evening." That is ridiculous.

Mr. William Ross: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the relevant Act, he will see that there is a legal obligation on the owners to report escapes.

Mr. Tyler: Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, if owners do that they will put themselves outside the law. So the law is making an ass of itself. It is important to clarify it as soon as possible.
Are we really to believe that as of 9 June this year there had been no reports of escapes from registered farms in the previous 12 months? That is patently untrue. The feral population is increasing; that cannot be happening by natural breeding alone.
The Minister gave the impression that the annual inspections in these fur prison camps were an effective parade and that it was possible to check on precise numbers—and that any animal escaping would be immediately identified, like some prisoner of war. That is absurd: the system is not working.
The escapees from this artificial captivity are especially dangerous to the fragile ecological balance in the natural habitat. Wildlife is suffering. Feral mink can cause chaos and ecological disaster.
If there were some sudden change in the tactics of the Animal Liberation Front and it let loose large numbers of captive animals into the wild, that would cause great damage.
We greatly regret that the House is not being given the chance to vote on the amendment. At the same time, we should acknowledge that eradication of mink in the wild is probably now impossible. It is important not to treat the mink as a scapegoat for all the problems of the delicate balance in the wild. English Nature says:
The mink is now too well established in Britain for eradication to be an option, so conservation action should focus on creating those conditions which best enable vulnerable prey to cope with mink predation in the future.
That means that we will have to be even more careful about allowing this activity to continue. We should work steadily on a planned programme of the run-down and eventual prohibition of all mink farming. The massive increase in such farming which still might occur would be extremely dangerous, and any more escapes to the wild would cause great damage.
I was interested to hear the Minister say that mink are very easy to catch. I understand that a great many different techniques are used to catch them. I am not sure which one the Minister recommends as easy, but since a large number of mink in some parts of the country are still doing great damage, the Minister should concentrate his attention on advancing the parallel development of improved methods of eradication—at the same time as running down and prohibiting the farms.
Both the Council of Europe and the Farm Animal Welfare Council have pointed the way: their expert advice is available to all Members, many of whom support it. Tonight the Minister has a responsibility to assure the House that he will ensure that this trade is stopped and the problems with which it is connected are removed.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: The large number of signatures appended to the relevant early-day motion shows that the strength of feeling expressed by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is shared by Members of all parties. The aim of most of our constituents is the elimination of fur farming.
I would have hoped that we might vote on the amendment tonight. That is not possible, but it is the reason I and others are speaking. To vote against the order would be a disaster. If by some mischance it was defeated, it would not lead to the abolition of controlled mink farming in this country; it would mean that mink farming could proceed without any control whatever. Farms would be able to be set up without the restrictions and controls that the Minister described. Competition would put out of business immediately those who were attempting to conform to the order. The result of that would certainly not be the humane slaughter and disposal of the present stock of mink, but escape to the wild would be facilitated as the cheapest possible option.
I want to see an end to fur farming in this country. My hon. Friend the Minister may not be able to give us an assurance about that tonight, but until that happy day comes we need some control of these animals and the order must therefore be supported.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I shall certainly speak briefly so as to let other hon. Members in. My interest arises only because of the reference to my constituency in the order. I do not criticise the Minister for flippancy, but things were said that require the record to be straightened.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) made the point that there is no such thing as a natural mink population and, therefore, the Minister was unintentionally misleading in suggesting that there was. The parallel between Lewis and Harris, and Arran in my constituency, is precise in that both have mink populations because there were farms in those islands 20 to 30 years ago when people were crazy enough to open those farms in agricultural communities and then to allow those creatures to escape. We have lived with these problems ever since. I do not think that in the real world anyone will open a mink farm on Arran; there are ways in which it would be blocked if anyone made such a ludicrous proposal.
However, I gather from the Minister's remarks that exclusion from or inclusion in this order is a reflection of the steps taken to eradicate the existing problem. That is what I want to set straight.
The Minister said that mink are easy creatures to catch. I did not know about that, but I am prepared to take the word of hon. Members here who know a great deal about the subject. If that is the case, it is surely unforgivable that local groups in these communities and crofters and farmers have been suffering the problems for years without the little bit of support and expertise necessary to get rid of the problem once and for all.
On Arran for many years it was impossible for people to keep hens because of the mink population. I know that that has also been the case in the Western Isles. There the problem spread. The mink were swimming from Harris across to North Uist and establishing a presence in a different group of islands where there had been no mink farming.
I shall end now so that others may speak. Surely if a little bit of money and a little bit of expertise are needed, on the basis of this debate that should be forthcoming. I shall certainly be raising the possibility with Scottish Natural Heritage on behalf of Arran and any other communities that continue to labour under this unfortunate and unnecessary affliction.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I am very concerned about the fact that nothing seems to be done about destroying the mink that are in the wild. Nobody has mentioned that in my part of the country some lunatics broke into a farm and released all the mink into the wild and ever since we have had a problem in north Staffordshire and the surrounding area. I have written to the National Rivers Authority which said that it had always been the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I wrote to the Minister and he said that it was entirely at the discretion of individual landowners or occupiers to decide whether they wished to control mink. Nobody is taking responsibility. Mink roam for at least a mile when they are breeding and can move at least 30 miles after the breeding season is over.
In north Staffordshire and the surrounding areas, there are reports of the destruction of wildlife. Despite what some people say, mink are not often seen. However, people do see fish killed by a bite through the backbone, between the head and the dorsal fin; and mammals and birds killed by a bite in the neck—usually near the base of the skull. In the case of a fresh kill, sometimes it is possible to see punctures about 8 mm apart, made by the mink's canine teeth.
Those are nasty, vicious and destructive creatures. I want to know who will take responsibility for getting rid of them before they destroy all our wildlife.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Hon. Members have already commented about sordid stalags, and I want the Minister to make it clear that Britain can provide standards higher than those recommended in the Council of Europe report. It would be extremely useful if we did so at this stage, since a number of member states permit cruel and barbaric practices. We want to see their standards raised, and it could be helpful if we could point to higher standards in Britain.
The Minister referred also to security. I believe that there have been no prosecutions for any fault or failing under the previous arrangements. Will the Minister make it clear to the remaining fur farmers that standards will be properly supervised, and that there will be no hesitation in bringing prosecutions should faults of the kind described to the House occur? There can be no excuse for the sort of cases to which reference has been made.
I hope that in the short time that remains before we can see an end to the wearing of furs produced in such odious circumstances the Government will ensure the standards are a great deal higher than they have been over the past 30 years.

Mr. Morley: I hope that the Minister has noted that not one hon. Member who has spoken during this short debate supported the keeping of mink or the Minister's claim that the order will be effective in preventing the escaping of mink.
We know that mink have escaped in every area where there have been mink farms. They have been established as a breeding species in the wild since 1957, and escaped mink are found around every mink farm, or the site of every former mink farm.
I accept that there is a legal obligation on mink farm owners to report escapes, but in reality not only are they reluctant to do so for obvious reasons—they will face prosecution—but when there are escapes, because there is a feral population in the wild, the mink farm owners invariably say that the mink are feral mink and not from their own farms.
That is certainly what happened in Halifax. The farmers did not report the matter to MAFF. When the local population see the mink, they understandably complain directly to the farm. That accounts for the lack of official complaints—and to suggest that that means that there have been no escapes is disingenuous.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will explain, as I asked him to do at the start, why the option to consult on the banning of mink was denied during the consultation period. I hope that he will also explain why it was that,


although the advice of Scottish Natural Heritage was accepted, that of English Nature was not, in the case of the Isle of Wight. I hope that it has nothing to do with the fact that there are no grouse moors on the Isle of Wight.
Will the Minister give an assurance that the state veterinary service will inspect every existing mink farm annually, as recommended by the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and that the service will be able to do that despite the Government cutbacks that it has suffered?
I hope that the Minister will acknowledge an argument that has been clearly made in the debate: that fur farming in this country does not meet either welfare standards recommended by the Government's own advisers or the recommendations of European committees. I hope that he will also acknowledge that 226 hon. Members have signed an early-day motion calling for an end to this type of intensive farming.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), expressed concern about voting against the order. I will give an assurance if, by any chance, the order is defeated tonight. If the Government will come back to the House with an order that includes an immediate moratorium on the keeping of mink—there is not a single reason why that could not be done tonight, because we are not talking about compensation to existing farms or about any great difficulties—or if the Minister will give the House an assurance that from now on no further licences will be issued to mink or fox farms, we will support the Government. He can do that. There is no financial or legal difficulty about it. If the Minister would bring forward an order that included both that and the phasing out of the keeping of fur animals in farms of this kind, the Opposition would co-operate with the Government in getting that order through as quickly as possible.
I want it put on the record that we shall vote against the order only if we do not get the assurance that this sort of fur farming will be phased out. If we vote against the order, it will not be because we do not want to see strong regulation, but because we want to see both regulation and the ending of this farming, which is odious, unnecessary and just part of a luxury trade. It fulfils no useful purpose in terms of economic employment in this country or of the welfare of the animals concerned. There is an opportunity tonight for the Minister to give an assurance that, at long last, something will be done about this matter and standards will be set that other European countries will follow.

Mr. Soames: I will try to confine myself to points that have been raised by hon. Gentlemen tonight, as they would expect.
I start with the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who spoke with a good deal of knowledge and experience on this matter, and particularly raised the question of the Isle of Wight, which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) also raised. They asked why mink keeping is not banned on the Isle of Wight. The answer is that there is a mink farm currently in operation on the Isle of Wight. It was there prior to the last review of the mink-keeping arrangements

and the conditions of its licence are especially stringent to prevent escapes. No escapes have been reported, so there is no justification for banning mink-keeping on the island.
At the same time, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe made a perfectly valid point about why English Nature recommended that mink farming be banned on the Isle of Wight. It is true that it did recommend that it should be banned, but that was because it was under the false impression that there were no farms currently in operation on the island. That is the definitive reason why they were not banned.
The hon. Gentleman then went on to ask for a ban and managed to drag in a bit of good solid class warfare about people wearing mink coats, and all the rest of it, but perhaps I can just deal with the sensible point that he made about the Farm Animal Welfare Council.
In a statement made in April 1989, the Farm Animal Welfare Council—as I have already said, a body to whose views the Ministry of Agriculture and Her Majesty's Government attach the highest importance—expressed its disapproval of fur farming, and many hon. Members, I am sure, share that view. However, it did not recommend that the practice be stopped.
At about this time, the Council of Europe was working on its welfare recommendation, which was adopted a year later. We expect that recommendation to be used as the basis for a Community standard. The Government's policy regarding the welfare of fur animals is that we will press for the highest standards to be adopted on a Communitywide basis.
The Farm Animal Welfare Council's statement recommended research into housing and behavioural requirements of the mink and fox. It recommended that pelting sheds be sited away from enclosures to prevent distress caused by the release of scent during pelting, and that the state veterinary service should monitor fur farms on a regular basis. Several hon. Members felt that the state veterinary service should inspect every year. I have taken that on board, and will consult my right hon. Friend the Minister and others to see what steps can be taken.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe called for a moratorium on new mink farms. Under our present regime we might encounter some legal difficulties, on the ground that it would be unreasonable to refuse a licence to a new farm that could meet the same requirements as existing farms. On the basis of the mink's destructive habits, I must say that a ban on mink keeping is not justified. The security arrangements are adequate in preventing escapes, so that is not a relevant argument.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) made a knowledgeable and robust speech, as would be expected of someone who actually understands a little about the countryside. He spoke at length, and with knowledge, of the feral mink: his angling interests have ensured that he is kept well informed—and he knows that I share his enthusiasm for that. It is true that mink are easy to catch, and if the hon. Gentleman would like to accompany me one day I shall show him how to do it. He is right: it requires both time and effort, as well as some expertise. I am not aware—and neither is my Department—of the existence of feral kangaroos and wallabies in this country, although I have no doubt that the suggestion will comfort those who drive home late at night having drunk too much.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West made a passionate and knowledgeable speech about a subject on


which he plainly feels strongly. He mentioned sightings of escaped mink, as have many other Opposition Members. There is no point in their banging on at me; none of those sightings, save one, has been reported to the Ministry of Agriculture. We are unable to act unless members of the public make a report to us. [Interruption.] There is no point in the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) citing a report in an evening paper; that is no good to us. We need sightings to be reported to the regional service centres so that we can take the necessary action.
It is quite untrue to say that we are insufferably complacent. We regard this as an extremely serious matter, and we acknowledge the strength of feeling expressed by many of our citizens. It is in our interests to ensure that a disagreeable business is conducted honourably and properly. I look forward to seeing the hon. Member for Newham, North-West shortly to discuss the situation at Swalesmoor, and to examine at greater length the photographs that he has already shown me. I apologise for standing him up today.
The hon. Gentleman also made an important point about the sighting of escaped farm mink. Reports of sightings have been made by individuals and organisations, and have been investigated, but they have failed to confirm the origin of the mink, and to highlight any deficiency in the security of mink farms that needs to be addressed. It is extremely difficult for the lay person to distinguish between wild and farmed mink—as it is to distinguish between a weasel and a stoat: as the House will know, a weasel is weasily identified, but a stoat is stoatally different. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think it is rather a good joke, actually.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Tyler) mentioned eradication. The Department mounted an eradication campaign; it cost about £20,000 a year, was operated for five years and was ultimately found to be entirely unrealistic. We take the question of the capture of wild mink very seriously, but, at the end of the day, it is up to individual landowners to ensure that their land is free of mink.
I wholly endorse the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) about the folly of voting against the order: that would only ensure that a large population of mink were released into the wild, which would be extremely unsatisfactory.
I shall be happy to arrange for a discussion between the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and Scottish Natural Heritage. If he wishes to come and discuss it with me, I shall be happy to oblige. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) has shown great interest in the matter: again, it comes down to individual landowners——

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business ):—

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 188.

Division No. 98]
[11.45 pm

 AYES


Adley, Robert
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Alexander, Richard
Ashby, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Aspinwall, Jack


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Amess, David
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Ancram, Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)





Baldry, Tony
Gillan, Cheryl


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bates, Michael
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Batiste, Spencer
Gorst, John


Beggs, Roy
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Bendall, Vivian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grylls, Sir Michael


Booth, Hartley
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hague, William


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowis, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Hanley, Jeremy


Brandreth, Gyles
Hargreaves, Andrew


Brazier, Julian
Harris, David


Bright, Graham
Haselhurst, Alan


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hawkins, Nick


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hawksley, Warren


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hayes, Jerry


Burns, Simon
Heald, Oliver


Burt, Alistair
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butcher, John
Hendry, Charles


Butler, Peter
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Butterfill, John
Horam, John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Carttiss, Michael
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cash, William
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunter, Andrew


Clappison, James
Jack, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Jenkin, Bernard


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coe, Sebastian
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Congdon, David
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Conway, Derek
Key, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Kirkhope, Timothy


Couchman, James
Knapman, Roger


Cran, James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knox, David


Day, Stephen
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Devlin, Tim
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Legg, Barry


Dover, Den
Leigh, Edward


Duncan, Alan
Lidington, David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lightbown, David


Dunn, Bob
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lord, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Luff, Peter


Eggar, Tim
MacKay, Andrew


Elletson, Harold
Maclean, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Madel, David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Malone, Gerald


Evennett, David
Marland, Paul


Faber, David
Marlow, Tony


Fabricant, Michael
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fishburn, Dudley
Merchant, Piers


Forman, Nigel
Milligan, Stephen


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mills, Iain


Forth, Eric
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Moate, Roger


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Monro, Sir Hector


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Moss, Malcolm


Freeman, Roger
Needham, Richard 

French, Douglas
Nelson, Anthony


Gale, Roger
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gallie, Phil
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gardiner, Sir George
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gill, Christopher
Norris, Steve






Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Streeter, Gary


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sweeney, Walter


Page, Richard
Sykes, John


Paice, James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Pawsey, James
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thomason, Roy


Pickles, Eric
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thurnham, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rathbone, Tim
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Richards, Rod
Tredinnick, David


Riddick, Graham
Trend, Michael


Robathan, Andrew
Trimble, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Viggers, Peter


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Walden, George


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Waller, Gary


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Ward, John


Sackville, Tom
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Waterson, Nigel


Shaw, David (Dover)
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wells, Bowen


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wheeler, Sir John


Shersby, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Sims, Roger
Whittingdale, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Widdecombe, Ann


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wiggin, Jerry


Soames, Nicholas
Willetts, David


Speed, Sir Keith
Wilshire, David


Spencer, Sir Derek
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wolfson, Mark


Spink, Dr Robert
Wood, Timothy


Spring, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Sproat, Iain
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)



Stephen, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. James Arbuthnot and Mr. Tim Boswell.


Stewart, Allan





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ainger, Nick
Corbyn, Jeremy


Allen, Graham
Cousins, Jim


Alton, David
Cox, Tom


Ashton, Joe
Cryer, Bob


Austin-Walker, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Barnes, Harry
Darling, Alistair


Barron, Kevin
Davidson, Ian


Battle, John
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Denham, John


Benton, Joe
Dixon, Don


Berry, Dr. Roger
Dowd, Jim


Betts, Clive
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Blunkett, David
Eagle, Ms Angela


Boyce, Jimmy
Eastham, Ken


Bradley, Keith
Enright, Derek


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Etherington, Bill


Burden, Richard
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Byers, Stephen
Fatchett, Derek


Caborn, Richard
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foster, Don (Bath)


Cann, Jamie
Fraser, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Fyfe, Maria


Chisholm, Malcolm
Galbraith, Sam


Clapham, Michael
Galloway, George


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gapes, Mike


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
George, Bruce


Clelland, David
Gerrard, Neil


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Coffey, Ann
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Cohen, Harry
Godsiff, Roger


Connarty, Michael
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Graham, Thomas





Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morley, Elliot


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Grocott, Bruce
Mudie, George


Gunnell, John
Mullin, Chris


Hall, Mike
Murphy, Paul


Hanson, David
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hardy, Peter
O'Hara, Edward


Heppell, John
Olner, William


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Parry, Robert


Home Robertson, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hood, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pope, Greg


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hoyle, Doug
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Purchase, Ken


Hutton, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Illsley, Eric
Raynsford, Nick


Ingram, Adam
Redmond, Martin


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Reid, Dr John


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jamieson, David
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Rogers, Allan
 
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rowlands, Ted


Jowell, Tessa
Sedgemore, Brian


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Short, Clare


Khabra, Piara S.
Simpson, Alan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Leighton, Ron
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Soley, Clive


Lewis, Terry
Spearing, Nigel


Livingstone, Ken
Spellar, John


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Loyden, Eddie
Steinberg, Gerry


Lynne, Ms Liz
Stevenson, George


McAllion, John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McAvoy, Thomas
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Macdonald, Calum
Tipping, Paddy


McKelvey, William
Turner, Dennis


Mackinlay, Andrew
Tyler, Paul


McMaster, Gordon
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


McWilliam, John
Watson, Mike


Madden, Max
Wicks, Malcolm


Mahon, Alice
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wilson, Brian


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Winnick, David


Maxton, John
Wise, Audrey


Meale, Alan
Worthington, Tony


Michael, Alun
Wray, Jimmy


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wright, Dr Tony


Milburn, Alan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Miller, Andrew



Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Tellers for the Noes:


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr Jack Thompson.


Morgan, Rhodri

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Mink keeping Order 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.

PETITIONS

Disabled Persons

Mr. Bill Olner: I beg to ask leave to present a petition which reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled.


The Humble Petition of the citizens of Nuneaton showeth: That disabled people must have the right to the same equality of opportunity in all aspects of their daily life as non-disabled people;
that people who are disabled or perceived to be disabled continually have to face widespread unjustifiable discrimination; and
that legislation is necessary to outlaw this unjustifiable discrimination.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House introduce legislation to outlaw this discrimination against disabled people as soon as possible.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
I sincerely hope that the sense of feeling expressed in the 239-signature petition against the discrimination of disabled people will be fully taken into account when my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) introduces his private Member's Bill.

To lie upon the Table.

Water Services, Scotland

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I rise to present a petition that has been signed by more than 30,000 people in the Inverclyde district. It expresses their deep disquiet and serious concern about the threat to the ownership and management of the water services in Scotland.
The petition was given to me in the Provost's room in the municipal buildings in Greenock in the presence of Liberal, Conservative and Labour councillors. In the traditional way, it expresses their deep concern and it states:
The Humble Petition of people of Inverclyde Sheweth, That we, the undersigned, do not consent to and further entirely disapprove of any proposal that would lead to the privatisation of Scottish water.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House communicate our disapproval to the Secretary of State for Scotland and reject any proposed legislation to privatise Scottish water.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.

To lie upon the Table.

Bypass (East Cleveland)

Mr. Michael Bates: I beg leave to present to the House a petition signed by 1,500 of my constituents calling for a bypass of the towns of East Cleveland, Skelton, and Brotton. The petition was collected by Mr. L. J. Hill, of 11 Foster street, who leads the Brotton residents association.
The popular call for the bypass has been running for 15 years and I have pleasure in presenting the petition which reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Assembled.
The Humble Petition of the people of Brotton in East Cleveland Sheweth.
That owing to the level of traffic and the need for economic development in East Cleveland a bypass is urgently needed.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that Your Honourable House act to urge the Government to act to construct a bypass of Skelton and Brotton in East Cleveland.
And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Traffic (Residential Areas)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]

12 midnight

Mrs. Judith Chaplin: We have just heard a petition for a bypass, and I wish to raise a problem that has arisen after a bypass has been built. I welcome the opportunity to raise the problem in the House.
We all want to reduce the congestion on our roads. The Confederation of Business Industry constantly points out the enormous damage that congested roads cause to industry and business. We need to have traffic moving freely around the country and between the industrial areas and ports of this country.
Every time a new road is built, or a road is increased in width, the people who live nearby are affected. Sometimes those people can be compensated financially. At other times they will have insulation through grants from the highway authority. When new roads are built, there will be screens, banking, trees and all manner of methods to reduce the nuisance that new roads cause to those who live near them.
The problem arises because the measures apply only when there are new roads or when additional carriageways are added to existing roads. There must be some alteration to the location, the width or the level of the carriageway. The public can be compensated only if the increased traffic cannot reasonably be foreseen. Therefore, when it is simply an increase in traffic, none of the compensatory measures apply, but even if the existing roads have the same level of noise as a new road, compensation would be justified.
That exact problem has arisen on a road in my constituency. The A34 goes from the north to the south of the constituency. In 1966 a bypass was built around the village of East Ilsley. The residents welcomed the bypass because it brought relief to the village. The village has narrow streets, and the villagers were delighted that the heavy traffic was removed from its centre.
Since that time, the traffic travelling along the A34 bypass beside the village has increased enormously. It has increased especially since the A34 was named as one of the Euroroutes in 1975. I know that the Government do not recognise Euroroutes and do not wish to do all the signing that would be necessary for them; one accepts that that is a sensible decision. However, there is no doubt that the naming of the A34 as a Euroroute means that lorries are directed to use such routes.
Furthermore, there has been a tremendous step change recently because the A34 has become the main link between the south coast ports and the midlands. The A34 also links with the extension of the M40, so it is an excellent way of getting from the south coast of England to the midlands. That extension has enormously increased the traffic on the A34. It has not simply meant that the number of vehicles going by has increased greatly; the tonnage of the vehicles has also increased. Many large lorries now pass along the A34.
The Department of Transport recognises the importance of the A34. I hope that the Newbury bypass will be included in the Department's plans shortly. The Minister should take this opportunity to reassure me that he recognises the enormous importance of the A34 to this area. At present the road beside Newbury is heavily used.


Indeed, there are always long queues on it. On the days when there are races at Newbury racecourse the traffic virtually comes to a halt. It can take literally hours to get from the M4 to Newbury. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that it is vital that nothing stops the bypass being built as soon as possible.
The Department recognises the importance of the road because the junction of the A34 with the M4 is to be altered so that the A34 goes straight through and there is no roundabout stopping the flow of traffic. The altered junction will be near another village in my constituency, Chieveley. As the route will be changed, the residents will receive the full protection that can be given to those who live near new roads. But those who live slightly further up the road feel, not unnaturally, that they are being unfairly treated in this case.
We all recognise that the road will be busy. The inevitable consequence of the present level of traffic on the road is that the noise in the village has increased immensely. I understand from the useful booklet published by the Department of the Environment about insulation against traffic noise that the highway authority normally compensates people living near new roads or where roads have been extended if the noise is above 68 decibels, taking an average over a certain period. When measures were taken for the houses nearest to the road in East Ilsley, measurements of 73 and 78 decibels were recorded—well above that which would normally qualify for compensation if the road was new.
I was in the village at 10 o'clock on Sunday morning. The noise was substantial even then—a time which is the most peaceful of the week and the day. Obviously, on a normal working day the noise would be substantially higher.
In other Government Departments we are doing so much to protect the environment. We endlessly introduce legislation to reduce noise for people who live near the source of many types of noise. Yet the people living by the A34 are unprotected. Another booklet entitled "Bothered by noise?" tells people how to complain about noises such as horns of cars or reversing alarms of lorries, all of which are controlled.
A consultative document has been published about sources of noise such as clay pigeon shooting and war games and the number of days on which such activities may be pursued in an area. People recognise that noise is a genuine nuisance and that it destroys the environment. Therefore, the Government have a duty to do something about it. People in the village in my constituency do not suffer from intermittent noise on some days of the year: they suffer from continuous noise throughout the year from the heavy traffic on the road.
I know that if I suggest that people should receive compensation for the increased noise or that the Department should do something to ameliorate the noise, the immediate response will be that the cost is too high. I will be told that if the Department accepted that increased traffic could lead to compensation, it would set a precedent which would cause difficulties in other areas. However, that is not true, because an objective measure could be used above which compensation would be paid.
For example, the Government could say that compensation would be paid if the road was a Euroroute.

Or an objective level of the number of vehicles travelling along the road, the tonnage of the vehicles or the level of noise could be set above which compensation could be paid. Several objective measures could be used above which either compensation could be paid or help could be given with insulation or other measures. One could state that above those levels the highway authority should provide grants to insulate houses that are most affected. Of course, that would mean legislation and I am realistic enough to know that that is unlikely in the immediate future. However, the Department should show that it is determined to lessen the impact, which has been substantial because of the change in the way in which the road is used.
An earth bank is not possible because of the siting of the road and the village, but I understand that the Department is considering other measures. It has issued guidance on the way in which barriers are made. Acoustic fences could be used, and I understand that it is experimenting with pervious macadam, which lessens the noise.
I urge the Minister to reconsider the problem caused by the road as it passes the village, and to find out whether anything can be done to lessen its impact. Work will be done on the road when the junction is altered and when the Newbury bypass is built. I hope that at the same time he will consider whether it is possible to take measures to improve the lives of the people in the village. It is a shame for a charming village and the lives of its inhabitants to be destroyed because of constant noise.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): It is a pleasure for me to answer this debate, even at this late hour, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mrs. Chaplin) on raising this important subject. I do not want to embarrass her, but since she came to the House she has often come to me with the problems of her constituency, which she pursues with great force and tenacity. I respect her efforts on behalf of her constituents.
My hon. Friend is right to say that traffic has increased continually during the past few years. That is the result of growing economic activity, of people's desire to have cars and of development decisions. It also reflects our belief that people should have choice in their means of travel. It is certainly true that more than 90 per cent. of passenger journeys and more than 90 per cent. of overland freight trips are by road and so whatever we do to improve to rail transport—we are anxious to move more goods on to rail—we would still need a substantial road programme. All our predictions show that growth will continue. The White Paper, "Roads for Prosperity", predicts an increase in total traffic of between 83 per cent. and 142 per cent. by the year 2025 compared with 1988.
My hon. Friend is right to say that we shall continue to face the problem. We believe that the trend in growth will be faster for inter-urban traffic than for traffic on urban roads. It is significant that, although trunk roads—the major roads across the country—form little more than 4 per cent. of the total road mileage in Great Britain, they carry 31 per cent. of all traffic, including 54 per cent. of heavy goods vehicle traffic.
Like my hon. Friend, I am anxious that we should do everything possible to reduce congestion because it is bad


for the economy and for the environment—it leads to increased air pollution, for example. We are determined to do everything possible to relieve congestion and to protect the environment.
My hon. Friend was mostly concerned about noise, but because air pollution is important for communities near roads, it is worth recording that we are making substantial progress in restraining such pollution.
Tight new emission standards for cars and lorries are coming in over the next few years, and from the beginning of 1993 most new cars will need catalytic converters. They should reduce harmful emissions by about 80 per cent. The MOT emissions check was introduced for cars in November 1991, and since 1 September there has been a metered smoke test in the annual test for heavy diesels. A similar test for light vans and diesel cars will be included for the first time in the MOT test from 1 January next. So, as my hon. Friend will see, we are doing much to combat pollution.
Another effective way of dealing with congestion and helping communities is by a substantial bypass programme. If we can build bypasses, we remove traffic from town centres and villages. That is of huge benefit to those communities. Under our roads programme, we have completed about 400 improvement schemes since 1979, including more than 150 bypasses. This year we expect to complete another 32 schemes, of which 11 will be bypasses. So a substantial number of roads are bypasses.
My hon. Friend referred to her wish for a Newbury bypass. I also share that wish. I hope that in the coming year we shall be able to make good progress with that scheme, and I urge her to keep in close contact with me about it. We know how hard pressed that community is and we want to relieve Newbury of traffic.
I wish to go in some detail into the provisions for compensation because my hon. Friend argued a close brief and mentioned precisely some of the mitigation measures and the compensation we have paid. It is worth reviewing those measures. An important aspect of the entry of a scheme into the roads programme is that it brings into play the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973. In those circumstances, when, as a highway authority, we are acting as a developer in providing a new road or significantly altering an existing one, the Act imposes statutory obligations and gives us powers which enable us to provide traffic noise mitigation measures, and to pay compensation for depreciation in the value of properties arising from physical factors, including noise intrusion emanating from a new or altered road.
Under the Act, where a new road is first opened to public traffic or where a new carriageway is added to an existing road, the highway authority is required to offer insulation to occupiers of eligible properties if the noise level on a facade of the property rises above a specified level.
My hon. Friend explained in some detail the levels of noise that must be reached, and I shall not restate those, although it must be said that the levels are clearly thought out, that we apply them in a scientific way and that we do whatever we can to mitigate noise. Sometimes we do not provide insulation, for example, if we believe that a noise barrier would he more effective. Since coming to my present post, I have been struck by the nuisance that noise creates. I have already dealt with several debates on the

subject, and I assure my hon. Friend that we are in no way complacent about the problem of noise. We are determined to do all we can to reduce it.
The question of noise from different forms of road surface is particularly difficult. The perception is that the noise from concrete surfaces is higher than that from black-top. Because that perception is clear, a substantial review was followed by my announcement on 28 July of a three-pronged attack on the source of noise from road surfaces.
The first development will mean that motorways with a heavy traffic load and trunk roads carrying more than 75,000 vehicles a day will generally be constructed with black-top rather than concrete. We shall consider roads carrying less than that volume scheme by scheme to achieve the best result.
The second and most exciting development will be that, in urban and other noise-sensitive areas, porous asphalt will be used where conditions are suitable and where the benefits outweigh the higher cost. I hope to make considerable progress in the next few months with that new material.
Thirdly, we are continuing our research and next year we shall include a trial on a scheme in Derbyshire of a new concrete called "whisper concrete", which has been developed successfully in some European countries. We want to see how it does here. So we are not complacent and will try to make new roads quieter.
My hon. Friend specifically spoke of the hard-pressed community of East Ilsley. I am sorry that none of those measures will help that community and I shall seek to explain why, but first I shall put the A34 in context. It is a strategic route between the industrial west midlands and the south coast ports which has been progressively developed to a high standard. From the Oxford area northwards, the route comprises the M40 extension that was opened early last year. From Winchester southwards, linking the M27, it is the M3, the last section of which is now being built. Between Oxford and Winchester, the majority of the A34 will have been improved under a series of schemes to which the noise mitigation provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 have been applied wherever relevant. That includes the East Ilsley-Chilton improvement, the remaining A34 schemes still in preparation, the Newbury bypass and the A34-M4 junction 13, which is the Chieveley scheme. All those will be treated in accordance with the Act.
As my hon. Friend explained, the main exception is the East Ilsley bypass itself, which was completed a couple of years before the 1969 cut-off date to which the retrospective provisions of the Act apply.
The traffic flow on the A34 in the East Ilsley area is in the order of 35,000 vehicles a day, which is appropriate for the standard of road. Therefore, we do not believe that there is excessive traffic on that road at present. Although it has increased and can be expected to increase further, the A34 is no different from many other roads throughout the country.
On noise mitigation, the key factor is that the length of A34 in question is an existing road for which we have no improvement proposals. As my hon. Friend said, if that road were improved, it would be a different matter and provisions would apply to the road's improvement or redesign.
My hon. Friend mentioned Euroroutes. The A34 was designated as a Euroroute some time ago in the European


agreement on main international traffic arteries, which the United Kingdom has not yet ratified. My hon. Friend will understand that designation has little significance in the context of noise intrusion and confers no entitlement to special noise measures or treatment.
The legislation does not take into account traffic levels more than 15 years after the opening of a road or review the noise mitigation measures provided as a consequence of traffic growth that is greater than that estimated when a scheme was prepared. We do not provide any relief from roads such as the East Ilsley bypass, opened before 17 October 1969. The obligations placed on us relate only to where a new road is provided or an existing one significantly altered.
I have every sympathy with those who have suffered an intensification of traffic noise as a result of increased traffic volumes. However, in the absence of legislation requiring us to restrict noise intrusion to prescribed levels along existing unaltered roads, we could not justify the substantial costs involved in meeting, on an equitable basis, the many requests that we receive for protection.
I know that that response will not be of much comfort to my hon. Friend, who wants to change the position. However, I must emphasise that the costs of doing so would be substantial. We believe that, on trunk roads alone, the cost would be more than £2 billion throughout

the country. That would mean the postponement of many bypasses that my right hon. and hon. Friends desire to be built around their communities, the delaying of many much-needed schemes to reduce congestion, and the imposition of an intolerable burden on our road building programme. I do not believe that the Government would be justified in delaying so many road schemes and bypasses.
I am sorry that I cannot help my hon. Friend further this evening. I admire the tenacity with which she presses her case. I am always willing to consider such matters again to see whether there is any way in which I can help the community that is exceptionally hard pressed. However, I have to do so without opening the flood gates. If my hon. Friend would like to continue the discussion with me and my Department, she is more than welcome to do so, and I look forward to many future discussions with her.
I have described the growth in traffic and what we are doing to reduce noise in new schemes, such as the new techniques, the noise barriers and the new surfaces. I have described the detailed legislation and tried to explain why, in this case, I cannot bend to her arguments, although I sympathise with them. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important topic to the attention of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.